This study by Robertson et al, was done in poor households in Zimbabwe. It compared UCT (Unconditional Cash Transfers) CT (Conditional Cash Transfers), and a control group).
Eligible households contained children younger than 18 years and satisfied at least one other criteria: head of household was younger than 18 years; household cared for at least one orphan younger than 18 years, a disabled person, or an individual who was chronically ill; or household was in poorest wealth quintile.Results
Addendum1199 eligible households were allocated to the control group, 1525 to the UCT group, and 1319 to the CCT group. Compared with control clusters, the proportion of children aged 0–4 years with birth certificates had increased by 1·5% (95% CI −7·1 to 10·1) in the UCT group and by 16·4% (7·8–25·0) in the CCT group by the end of the intervention period. The proportions of children aged 0–4 years with complete vaccination records was 3·1% (−3·8 to 9·9) greater in the UCT group and 1·8% (−5·0 to 8·7) greater in the CCT group than in the control group. The proportions of children aged 6–12 years who attended school at least 80% of the time was 7·2% (0·8–13·7) higher in the UCT group and 7·6% (1·2–14·1) in the CCT group than in the control group.
From the conclusions of a CCT study in Colombia
We find that the absence of the father decreases schooling by approximately 5 percentage points and increases participation in work by approximately 3 percentage points. We provide evidence that these effects are mainly driven by households with relatively less educated heads, which are the very poorest of the indigent households in our sample. We show that receiving CCTs offsets these adverse consequences and offers children a form of insurance when the father leaves the household permanently.
