Submitted to the General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Terence Roopnaraine, and With contributions from Natalia Smith, Elif Altinok, Nurfer Çelebioğlu, Sema Cemal, Wahid Quabili, Tugba Atalar, Suzulay Hazar, Ozlem Agaoglu and Selahattin Erhan Submitted to the General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity Prime Ministry, Republic of Turkey Prepared by the International Food Policy Research Institute 2033 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, U.S.A. In collaboration with the AGRIN Co. Ltd. Bestekar Sokak 30/3, Kavaklidere 06680, Ankara, Turkey March 26, 2007 The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and its collaborator, the AGRIN Company Limited, gratefully acknowledge the General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity (SYDGM) for funding the Impact Evaluation of the Conditional Cash Transfers Project, under which this final evaluation report has been completed. The authors are especially indebted to Yadigar Gökalp, Director of the Social Risk Mitigation Project (SRMP), for her advice and support. We thank Süha Barlas, Ümit BaĢaran, Elif Güden, Derya HaĢemoğlu, Nazile Kademli, Gökhan Karatepe, Yalçın Kaya, Müge NiĢancı, Tomris OkĢar, Ekrem Serin, Hamdi Tomaç, Sevtap Turan, SavaĢ Yılmaz, and Feridun Akgöbek of the SRMP for their cooperation. We are also grateful to Cahit Bağcı from the State Planning Organization, and Mr.Mustafa Acar, from Kırıkkale University, for their comments on the study design. For the Quantitative Assessment, managers and staff of local Social Solidarity Foundations provided invaluable information and we are grateful for their support. The study would not have been possible without the cooperation of the 2,905 families from 26 provinces of Turkey who patiently answered numerous questions during the comprehensive household survey, which is the basis of this study. Our special thanks go to those survey respondents. We are indebted to enumerators and supervisors of the OPTIMAR for their dedication and hard work in carrying out the household survey. For the First Qualitative Assessment, 36 Social Solidarity Foundations managers and staff provided invaluable information and helped with arrangements to contact other stakeholders, and we are grateful for their support. The study would not have been possible without the cooperation of 557 people who have shared their views with us to help evaluate the Conditional Cash Transfer program. Appreciation is expressed to Yusuf Ziya Ozcan, Oyku Yalcin, Yasemin Surmeli, and Fisun Tatligil for their participation in the collection of qualitative information and editing the report. For the Second Qualitative and Anthropological Study, managers and staff of local Social Solidarity Foundations in Diyarbakir, Ergani, Samsun, Tekkekoy, Van, and Gurpinar provided invaluable information and assistance, and we are very grateful for their support. We also thank the muhtars and other government officials and local leaders, doctors, nurses and other health professionals, and teachers and school managers, who took time to speak with us and help us to understand local experiences with the program. Above all, we are grateful to the 87 families from six communities in the provinces of Diyarbakir, Samsun, and Van—men, women, and children—who welcomed our field researchers into their communities and homes for several months, and shared detailed aspects of their lives and experiences. Without their generous time, candidness, and insights, we could not have hoped to have come up with these findings; we only hope that the results can contribute toward improvements in the CCT and other social programs in ways that benefit them, their communities, and poor communities elsewhere. At IFPRI, we thank the director of the Food Consumption and Nutrition Division, Marie Ruel, for her overall guidance. We thank Nelly Rose Tioco, Jay Willis, and Marinella Yadao for their help with the technical production of all reports. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................ ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... vi 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 International Experience on CCT Programs .............................................................. 1 1.3 Evaluating the CCT Program in Turkey .................................................................... 2 2. SALIENT FEATURES OF THE CCT PROGRAM IN TURKEY ...................................... 5 2.1 Social Risk Mitigation Project and CCT ................................................................... 5 2.2 CCT Targeting Mechanism........................................................................................ 6 2.3 Beneficiary Targeting and Monitoring of Eligibility Status ...................................... 6 2.4 Payments .................................................................................................................... 8 3. METHODOLOGY AND THE DATA ................................................................................. 9 3.1 Quantitative Assessment of Program Impact ............................................................. 9 3.2 First Qualitative Assessment ................................................................................... 11 3.3 Second Qualitative Assessment .............................................................................. 12 4. INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS AFFECTING PROGRAM PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................... 15 4.1 Sources of Program Information .............................................................................. 16 4.2 Knowledge of Benefit Packages .............................................................................. 16 4.3 Understanding of Conditionalities ........................................................................... 17 4.4 Strengthen Communications Systems...................................................................... 18 4.5 A Community Liaison.............................................................................................. 18 4.6 Summary of Constraints on Program Implementation ............................................ 20 5. PROFILE OF SURVEY HOUSEHOLDS.......................................................................... 22 5.1 Household Characteristics ....................................................................................... 22 5.2 Consumption Patterns .............................................................................................. 27 5.3 Assets and Amenities ............................................................................................... 30 5.4 Labor Force Participation ........................................................................................ 30 5.5 Private Transfers and Remittances ........................................................................... 32 6. SYNERGIES BETWEEN CCT AND OTHER PROGRAMS ........................................... 33 6.1 Complementary Support for Education ................................................................... 33 6.2 Complementary Health Support .............................................................................. 35 6.3 Participation in Other Social Assistance Programs ................................................. 35 7. TARGETING PERFORMANCE ....................................................................................... 37 7.1 Targeting Performance: Distribution of CCT beneficiaries and Rejected Applicants Across Income Groups .......................................................................... 38 7.2 The Targeting Process at the Community Level...................................................... 40 7.3 Selection Criteria, Local Understandings, and Perceptions of Fairness .................. 41 7.4 Comments on the Proxy Means Test Scoring Formula ........................................... 43 iii 8. IMPACT ON EDUCATION .............................................................................................. 45 8.1 Educational Attainment: Descriptive Analysis of Quantitative Household Survey Data .............................................................................................................. 45 8.2 Assessing the Impact on Education ......................................................................... 48 8.3 Factors Explaining Education Decisions: Overview of Findings ............................ 52 9. IMPACT ON HEALTH AND NUTRITION ..................................................................... 60 9.1 Vaccination .............................................................................................................. 60 9.2 Illness ....................................................................................................................... 62 9.3 Nutrition ................................................................................................................... 64 10. IMPACT ON PREGNANCY ........................................................................................... 67 11. CCT EXTERNALITIES: HOUSEHOLD DYNAMICS AND WOMEN‘S STATUS .... 72 11.1 Adult Work Patterns .............................................................................................. 72 11.2 Child