The medium-term impact of a conditional cash transfer programme on educational outcomes in England

Figures & data

Table 1. Conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes in different countries.

Country	Programme	Target Population	Conditions (education related)	Transfer size	Principal impacts	Authors
Mexico	Opportunities programme (PROGRESA)	Low-income families with children ages 8–18; age limits raised to 20 in 2001	Enrolling primary school (grade 3 and higher) or secondary school and attending at least 85 per cent of the school days monthly and annually	For boys: varies by grades, Mex$70-225 (£5.4–16.8) per week For girls: varies by grades, Mex$70-255 (£5.4–16.8) (1998) per week	An increase of 0.5–0.7 years in years of schooling.	Behrman, Sengupta, and Todd (2005); Schultz (2004); Todd and Wolpin (2003)
Nicaragua	Red de Protecion Social (RPS)	Low-income families with children ages 6–13	Enrolling in primary school grades 1–4 and fewer than six days of unexcused school absence in a two-month cycle	School attendance transfer: C$1,440 (£70.3) per household per year School supplies transfer: C$ 275 (£13.4) per child beginning of school year (2000)	An average attendance increase of 20 percentage points for children age 7-13.	Maluccio and Flores (2005)
Colombia	Families in Action (FA)	Low-income families with children ages 7–17	At least 80 per cent school attendance in a two-month cycle	Monthly payment of 14,000 pesos (£4.2) for primary school children and 28,000 pesos (£8.4) for secondary school children (2002)	An increase in secondary school enrolment of 14 percentage points in the urban area and 5.5 percentage points in the rural area.	Attanasio et al. (2004)
Turkey	Social Risk Mitigation Project (SRMP)	Low-income families with children ages 6–17	Attending at least 80 per cent of the total school days and not to repeat the same grade more than once	Annual payment of 216YTL (£90) for boys and 264YTL (£110) for girls in primary school, and 336 YTL (£140) for boys and 468 YTL (£195) for girls in secondary school (2005)	An increase of 9.9 percentage points in overall enrolment rate for 14–17 years old, an increase of 7.8 percentage points in secondary school completion rate for girls.	Ahmed et al. (2006)
Australia	Young Allowance (AUSTUDY)	Ages 16–18, with family income and assets below the threshold	Full-time higher-education students and secondary students completing their final two years of school	Maximum weekly payment of $64.15 (£26.1) for 16-17-year-olds and $77.10 (£31.3) for 18-year-olds (1992)	An increase of 3.5 percentage points in Year 11 and 12 enrolments for poor children.	Dearden and Heath (1996)
UK	Education Maintenance Allowance programme (EMA)	Ages 16–19, with family income and assets below the threshold	Attending either a full-time further education course at a school/college, a course leading to an apprenticeship or a Foundation Learning Programme	Maximum weekly payment of £30 depending on annual household income, plus a retention bonus (2006)	An increase of 4.5 percentage points in Year 11 enrolment, an increase of 6.7 percentage points in receiving two years of education.	Dearden et al. (2009)

Table 2. Treatment and control groups for regression analysis.

Overall sample
Those whose family income was below £36,400
Treatment groups			Control group
One-year EMA	Two-year EMA	No information
Eligible*, applied^† and received for one year	Eligible*, applied^† and received for two years	Missing values for EMA receipt status	Not eligible* or did not apply^† for both years

Notes: *Eligible here means that young people need to be enrolled in eligible courses of further education and their family income at that time need to be below £30,810.

^† In order to receive EMA, eligible young people need to fill in an EMA application form every academic year.

Table 3. Summary of outcomes.

Outcome Variables	Gender of Young Person			Observations
	Male (%)	Female (%)	Total (%)
HE participation	34.26	41.34	37.68	3,203
Degree completion	20.29	22.45	21.23	3,203
NVQ Level 4+	25.36	30.67	27.92	3,203
Russell Group university	26.64	16.94	21.29	576
First or upper second-class	67.20	68.51	67.91	629

Notes: Sample for regression analysis. Weighted using wave 8 weights.

Source: University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies (2021) Next Steps: Sweeps 1-8, 2004-2016. [data collection]. 16th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 5545, http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-5545-8.

Table 4. Summary of EMA receipt status.

EMA Status	Gender of Young Person
	Male (%)	Female (%)	Total (%)	Weighted N
Never	42.14	36.05	39.20	1,343
One year	23.46	26.21	24.79	849
Two years	34.40	37.74	36.01	1,234
Total	100	100	100	3,427

Notes: Sample for regression analysis. Weighted using wave 8 weights.

Source: University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies (2021) Next Steps: Sweeps 1-8, 2004–2016. [data collection]. 16th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 5545, http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-5545-8.

Table 5. Educational attainments by EMA receipt status

Outcome Variables	EMA Receipt Status				Observations
	Never (%)	One year (%)	Two years (%)	Total (%)
HE participation	27.78	26.23	56.33	37.68	3,203
Degree completion	15.85	13.03	33.02	21.33	3,203
NVQ Level 4+	22.27	20.34	39.30	27.92	3,203
Russell Group university	26.99	20.24	18.42	21.29	576
First or upper second-class	70.73	65.68	66.95	67.91	629

Notes: Sample for regression analysis. Weighted using wave 8 weights.

Source: University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies (2021) Next Steps: Sweeps 1-8, 2004–2016. [data collection]. 16th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 5545, http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-5545-8.

Figure 1. HE participation by gender and EMA receipt status.

Notes: The figure displays the proportions of individuals who have ever participated in HE by age 25, based on a sample used for regression analysis. It is weighted using wave 8 weights, with a sample size of N = 3,203. The vertical lines in the figure denote the 95% confidence intervals. Source: University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies (2021) Next Steps: Sweeps 1–8, 2004–2016. [data collection]. 16th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 5545, http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-5545-8.

Figure 2. Degree attainment by gender and EMA receipt status.

Notes: The figure displays the proportions of individuals who have obtained a degree by age 25, based on a sample used for regression analysis. It is weighted using wave 8 weights, with a sample size of N = 3,203. The vertical lines in the figure denote the 95% confidence intervals. Source University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies (2021) Next Steps: Sweeps 1–8, 2004–2016. [data collection]. 16th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 5545, http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-5545-8.

Figure 3. NVQ Level 4+ achievement by gender and EMA receipt status.

Notes: The figure displays the proportions of individuals who have obtained NVQ Level 4+ by age 25, based on a sample used for regression analysis. It is weighted using wave 8 weights, with a sample size of N = 3,203. The vertical lines in the figure denote the 95% confidence intervals. Source: University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies (2021) Next Steps: Sweeps 1–8, 2004–2016. [data collection]. 16th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 5545, http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-5545-8.

Table 6. Impact of EMA on higher education participation (linear probability model).

EMA (base=Never received)		Model 1 LPM	Model 2 LPM	Model 3 LPM	Model 4 LPM	Model 5 LPM
Without reweighting	Ever received	0.163*** (0.0190)	0.191*** (0.0182)	0.113*** (0.0170)	0.0353** (0.0163)	0.0290 (0.0191)
R-squared		0.027	0.206	0.362	0.443	0.579
With entropy balancing	Ever received	0.0519* (0.0302)	0.0521** (0.0254)	0.0519** (0.0220)	0.0519*** (0.0196)	0.0315 (0.0217)
R-squared		0.003	0.251	0.405	0.494	0.654
Without reweighting	One year	−0.0155 (0.0224)	0.0439** (0.0205)	0.0125 (0.0190)	−0.0369* (0.0191)	−0.0442* (0.0227)
	Two years	0.285*** (0.0221)	0.304*** (0.0215)	0.198*** (0.0205)	0.105*** (0.0200)	0.0983*** (0.0223)
R-squared		0.084	0.247	0.382	0.455	0.588
With entropy balancing	One year	−0.00869 (0.0368)	−0.00869 (0.0284)	−0.00842 (0.0264)	−0.00853 (0.0252)	−0.0533* (0.0277)
	Two years	0.0714 (0.0471)	0.0715* (0.0372)	0.0713** (0.0294)	0.0713** (0.0280)	0.0823*** (0.0287)
R-squared		0.005	0.268	0.408	0.472	0.671
Demographic factors			✓	✓	✓	✓
Prior attainment				✓	✓	✓
Behaviours and attitudes					✓	✓
School fixed effects						✓
Observations		3,203	3,203	3,203	3,203	3,203

Notes: Cluster-robust standard errors in parentheses. *** indicates p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

Source: University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies (2022) Next Steps: Linked Education Administrative Datasets (National Pupil Database), England, 2005–2009: Secure Access. [data collection]. 6th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 7104, DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7104-6.

Table 7. Impact of EMA on whether obtained a first degree (linear probability model).

EMA (base=Never received)		Model 1 LPM	Model 2 LPM	Model 3 LPM	Model 4 LPM	Model 5 LPM
Without reweighting	Ever received	0.0902*** (0.0150)	0.111*** (0.0149)	0.0569*** (0.0142)	0.00881 (0.0137)	−0.00326 (0.0158)
R−squared		0.012	0.118	0.229	0.277	0.448
With entropy balancing	Ever received	0.0137 (0.0250)	0.0139 (0.0223)	0.0138 (0.0205)	0.0138 (0.0186)	0.00364 (0.0200)
R−squared		0.000	0.161	0.266	0.326	0.548
Without reweighting	One year	−0.0282* (0.0160)	0.0126 (0.0161)	−0.00816 (0.0155)	−0.0372** (0.0153)	−0.0530*** (0.0173)
	Two years	0.172*** (0.0186)	0.186*** (0.0182)	0.112*** (0.0176)	0.0533*** (0.0173)	0.0438** (0.0193)
R−squared		0.047	0.144	0.241	0.283	0.454
With entropy balancing	One year	−0.0388 (0.0319)	−0.0389 (0.0272)	−0.0387 (0.0259)	−0.0388 (0.0247)	−0.0532** (0.0232)
	Two years	0.0431 (0.0395)	0.0432 (0.0316)	0.0431* (0.0259)	0.0431* (0.0247)	0.0348 (0.0253)
R−squared		0.006	0.195	0.291	0.341	0.589
Demographic factors			✓	✓	✓	✓
Prior attainment				✓	✓	✓
Behaviours and attitudes					✓	✓
School fixed effects						✓
Observations		3,203	3,203	3,203	3,203	3,203

Notes: Cluster-robust standard errors in parentheses. *** indicates p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1.

Source: University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies (2022) Next Steps: Linked Education Administrative Datasets (National Pupil Database), England, 2005-2009: Secure Access. [data collection]. 6th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 7104, DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7104-6.

Table 8. Impact of EMA on whether obtained NVQ Level 4 or above (linear probability model).

EMA (base=Never received)		Model 1 LPM	Model 2 LPM	Model 3 LPM	Model 4 LPM	Model 5 LPM
Without reweighting	Ever received	0.0930*** (0.0175)	0.114*** (0.0177)	0.0616*** (0.0172)	0.00459 (0.0166)	−0.00257 (0.0186)
R-squared		0.010	0.110	0.197	0.248	0.434
With entropy balancing	Ever received	0.0245 (0.0275)	0.0250 (0.0243)	0.0248 (0.0223)	0.0247 (0.0204)	0.0159 (0.0221)
R-squared		0.001	0.158	0.249	0.305	0.528
Without reweighting	One year	−0.0193 (0.0200)	0.0216 (0.0200)	0.00119 (0.0194)	−0.0345* (0.0193)	−0.0421* (0.0215)
	Two years	0.170*** (0.0206)	0.185*** (0.0208)	0.113*** (0.0208)	0.0423** (0.0200)	0.0348 (0.0219)
R-squared		0.036	0.129	0.206	0.252	0.437
With entropy balancing	One year	−0.0128 (0.0343)	−0.0129 (0.0288)	−0.0127 (0.0278)	−0.0130 (0.0269)	−0.0260 (0.0272)
	Two years	0.0101 (0.0403)	0.0151 (0.0334)	0.0138 (0.0281)	0.0138 (0.0260)	0.0218 (0.0265)
R-squared		0.000	0.184	0.266	0.316	0.566
Demographic factors			✓	✓	✓	✓
Prior attainment				✓	✓	✓
Behaviours and attitudes					✓	✓
School fixed effects						✓
Observations		3,203	3,203	3,203	3,203	3,203

Notes: Cluster-robust standard errors in parentheses. *** indicates p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1.

Source: University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies (2022) Next Steps: Linked Education Administrative Datasets (National Pupil Database), England, 2005-2009: Secure Access. [data collection]. 6th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 7104, DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7104-6.

Table 9. Impact of EMA on educational attainments, by gender (with entropy balancing).

		HE		Degree		NVQ
		Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
EMA (base=Never received)	One year	−0.0358 (0.0392)	0.00896 (0.0310)	−0.0162 (0.0326)	−0.0503 (0.0375)	0.0250 (0.0371)	−0.0228 (0.0399)
	Two years	0.118** (0.0516)	0.101*** (0.0376)	0.0643* (0.0367)	0.0155 (0.0386)	0.0279 (0.0382)	−0.00765 (0.0401)
Observations		1,423	1,780	1,423	1,780	1,423	1,780
R-squared		0.491	0.516	0.429	0.326	0.377	0.320

Notes: Cluster-robust standard errors in parentheses. *** indicates p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

Source: University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies (2022) Next Steps: Linked Education Administrative Datasets (National Pupil Database), England, 2005-2009: Secure Access. [data collection]. 6th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 7104, DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7104-6.

Table 10. Impact of EMA on educational attainments, by prior attainment (with entropy balancing).

		HE		Degree		NVQ
		Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
EMA (base=Never received)	One year	0.0193 (0.0472)	0.00798 (0.0309)	−0.0770 (0.0469)	0.00390 (0.0208)	−0.0173 (0.0508)	0.0379 (0.0325)
	Two years	0.0999*** (0.0344)	0.0639* (0.0336)	0.116*** (0.0419)	−0.0167 (0.0167)	0.110*** (0.0398)	−0.0432* (0.0254)
Observations		1,782	1,312	1,782	1,312	1,782	1,312
R-squared		0.323	0.320	0.274	0.241	0.249	0.207

Notes: Cluster-robust standard errors in parentheses. *** indicates p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

Source: University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies (2022) Next Steps: Linked Education Administrative Datasets (National Pupil Database), England, 2005-2009: Secure Access. [data collection]. 6th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 7104, DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7104-6.

Table 11. Impact of EMA on educational attainments, by parental education (with entropy balancing).

		HE		Degree		NVQ
		Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
EMA (base=Never received)	One year	0.0290 (0.0371)	−0.0314 (0.0331)	−0.0312 (0.0408)	−0.0144 (0.0270)	−0.0219 (0.0428)	0.00985 (0.0334)
	Two years	0.113*** (0.0348)	0.0589* (0.0331)	0.0823* (0.0443)	0.0272 (0.0292)	0.0700** (0.0329)	0.0198 (0.0322)
Observations		1,367	1,827	1,367	1,827	1,367	1,827
R-squared		0.522	0.403	0.413	0.269	0.408	0.247

Notes: Cluster-robust standard errors in parentheses. *** indicates p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

Source: University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies (2022) Next Steps: Linked Education Administrative Datasets (National Pupil Database), England, 2005-2009: Secure Access. [data collection]. 6th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 7104, DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7104-6.

Behrman, Jere R., Piyali Sengupta, and Petra Todd. 2005. “Progressing through PROGRESA: An Impact Assessment of a School Subsidy Experiment in Rural Mexico.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 54 (1): 237–275. https://doi.org/10.1086/431263.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schultz, T. Paul. 2004. “School Subsidies for the Poor: Evaluating a Mexican Strategy for Reducing Poverty.” Journal of Development Economics 74 (1): 199–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2003.12.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Todd, Petra, and Kenneth I. Wolpin. 2003. “Using a Social Experiment to Validate a Dynamic Behavioral Model of Child Schooling and Fertility: Assessing the Impact of a School Subsidy Program in Mexico.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 451980. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=451980.

 Google Scholar

Maluccio, John, and Rafael Flores. 2005. Impact Evaluation of a Conditional Cash Transfer Program: The Nicaraguan Red de Protección Social. Washington, DC: International Food Policy and Research Institute.

 Google Scholar

Attanasio, Orazio, Claudia Benavides, Catalina Borda, Carlos Castro, Maria Elvira Carvajal, Luis Carlos Gómez, Ana Gómez, et al. 2004. Baseline Report on the Evaluation of “Familias En Accion. Research Report. IFS Report.

 Google Scholar

Ahmed, Akhter U., Daniel Gilligan, Ayse Kudat, Refik Colasan, Huseyin Tatlidil, Bulent Ozbilgin, and Wahid Quabili. 2006. Interim Impact Evaluation of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in Turkey: A Quantitative Assessment. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

 Google Scholar

Dearden, Lorraine, and Alexandra Heath. 1996. “Income Support and Staying in School: What Can We Learn from Australia’s AUSTUDY Experiment?” Fiscal Studies 17 (4): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.1996.tb00246.x.

 Google Scholar

Dearden, Lorraine, Carl Emmerson, Christine Frayne, and Costas Meghir. 2009. “Conditional Cash Transfers and School Dropout Rates.” Journal of Human Resources 44 (4): 827–857. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.44.4.827.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies. 2021. Next Steps: Sweeps 1-8, 2004-2016. [data collection]. 16th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 5545.

 Google Scholar

University College London, UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies. 2022. Next Steps: Linked Education Administrative Datasets (National Pupil Database), England, 2005-2009: Secure Access. [data collection]. 6th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 7104.

 Google Scholar