Table 2.

Details of cash transfer programmes by country

Country	Name of programme	Year started	Targeting and eligibility	Number of beneficiaries	Health conditions	Education conditions	Verification	Supply-side conditions and additional benefits	Type of evaluation	Reference(s)
El Salvador	Red Solidaria	2005	Geographic /Proxy means-testing	100,000 households	Compliance with immunization and regular health and nutrition monitoring	Primary school enrollment/ 80% school attendance (5-15 years)	Health and education personnel provide information to NGO	Yes; supply-side component to strengthen basic health and nutrition services in the targeted areas	Regression discontinuity design, differences-in-differences	de Brauw and Peterman (2011)
Guatemala	Mi Familia Progresa	2008	Geographic /Proxy means-testing	250,000 households	Regular health visits for children [0-16 year(s)] and pregnant women	90% of school attendance	Not fully implemented	No	Differences-in-differences	Gutierrez et al. (2011)
Honduras	Programa de Asignación Familiar	1998	Geographic /Proxy means-testing	240,000 households	Compliance with required frequency of health centre visits; children attend growth monitoring; pregnant women receive at least 4 ANC visits	School enrollment/ 85% school attendance	None	Yes; promote access to an integrated package of services, including nutrition, healthcare, and basic services. Improve quality of facilities due to service-level package	Cluster-randomized trial, with a pre-test and post-test cross-sectional design	Morris, Flores, Olinto, and Medina (2004)
India	Janani Suraksha Yojana	2005	Poverty-line estimates	9,500,000 women	Delivery in health facility, antenatal check-ups	None	Community-level health workers	Yes; payments to ASHAs who identify pregnant women and help them get to a facility	Matching, with versus without comparison, differences-in-differences	Lim et al. (2010)
Mexico	Oportunidades (formerly PROGRESA)	1997	Geographic/Proxy means-testing	5,000,000 households	Children <2 years fully immunized and undergo growth monitoring. Prenatal visits, breastfeeding, physical check-ups	80% school attendance (monthly), and 93% (annually)/ Completion of middle school/ Completion of grade 12 before age 22 years	Programme state coordination agency	No	Regression discontinuity design, differences- in-differences	Urquieta et al. (2009); Stecklov et al. (2007); Sosa-Rubi et al. (2011); Barber and Gertler (2009); Feldman et al. (2009); Lamadrid-Figueroa et al. (2010)
Nepal	Safe Delivery Incentive Program (SDIP)	2005	All women	100,000 women	Deliver in a public health facility and had no more than two living children or an obstetric complication. Skilled attendance at birth	None	Deliver in health facility	Yes; provider incentives (US$ 5 for each delivery attended)	Propensity score matching	Powell-Jackson et al. (2009); Powell-Jackson et al. (2011)
Nicaragua	Red de Protección Social	2000	Geographic	3,000 households	Bimonthly health education workshops/Monthly healthcare visits (aged 0-2) or bimonthly (aged 3-5)/Adequate weight gain and up-to-date vaccinations (aged 0-5 years)	School enrollment in grades 1-4 (7-13 years)/ 85% school attendance (every 2 months)/Grade promotion at end of every year	Forms (confirmed by service providers and put into information system)	Yes; health education workshops every 2 months, child growth and monitoring, provision of antiparasite medicine, vaccinations, teacher transfer	Differences-in-differences	Stecklov et al. (2007)
Uruguay	Plan de Atención Nacional a la Emergencia Social	2005	Poverty-line estimates	102,000 individuals	Regular ANC health visits for pregnant women and children	NA	Visits; although not rigorously enforced	No	Regression discontinuity design, differences- in-differences	Amarante et al. (2011)

ANC=Antenatal care;

NA=Not available