A Randomized Evaluation of Household Grants in Rwanda

Study Context

Comparing a costly program to a counterfactual of no program may not be an adequate way of assessing whether that was the best use of the money.  Given the very large evidence base showing the effectiveness of cash transfers as well as their simplicity and low administrative cost, they form a natural ‘standard of care’ to which other programs can be compared. Led by Craig McIntosh and Andy Zeitlin, in partnership with USAID and GiveDirectly, this project rigorously evaluates the impact of unconditional cash transfers in Rwanda compared to a USAID-funded compared to an integrated nutrition and WASH program called Gikuriro and implemented by Catholic Relief Services.

Study Design

The study compared these two interventions using the following outcomes: household dietary diversity, child and maternal anemia, child growth (height-for-age, weight-for-age, mid-upper arm circumference), value of household wealth, and household consumption. The researchers also randomized variation in transfer amounts to estimate impacts of cash transfers at expenditure levels equivalent to the in-kind program, as well as to estimate the return to increasing cash transfer values.

Results and Policy Lessons

After approximately one year, the nutrition and WASH program had a positive impact on savings, a secondary outcome, but did not affect any of the primary outcomes measuring children’s well-being. An equivalent amount of cash disbursed by GiveDirectly (a cost to USAID of $142 per household of which an average of $114 was transferred) allowed households to pay down debt and boosted productive and consumption asset investment, but also had no impact on child health indicators. A much larger cash transfer—of more than $500 per household—had a wide range of benefits: it not only increased consumption, house values, savings, and assets, but also improved primary outcomes such as household dietary diversity and height-for-age while decreasing child mortality.