the treatment localities began receiving program benefits in the spring of 1998, whereas eligible households in the control group began receiving benefits at the end of 1999, after which both groups continued to receive program benefits. Evaluation questionnaires (called ENCELs) were applied every 6 months over the time period 1997 to 2000, with a final follow up in 2003. The majority of existing studies focus on the initial experimental period, when the treatment group received benefits and the control group did not. Some follow-up studies post 2000 of this evaluation sample have been carried out, notably in 2003 and 2007. However, note that followup studies after 2000 of the original experimental design carry out differential exposure impact estimates comparing effectively two treatment groups, one which has about 2 additional years of benefits than the other.

Early evaluation studies using the experimental design and data (see Parker and Todd, 2017 for a description) demonstrated positive effects of PROSPERA in improving school enrollment, reducing grade repetition and increasing completed grades of schooling (Schultz, 2004; Behrman, Sengupta and Todd, 2005). Enrollment impacts are higher at the transition from primary to secondary school; however, younger children experience large reductions in grade repetition and better grade progression (Behrman, Sengupta and Todd, 2005). At the junior high school level (grades 7-9), the program reduces the dropout rate and also encourages re-entry among those who have dropped out. Both Schultz (2004) and Behrman, Sengupta and Todd (2005) use their shortterm estimates to predict the effects on overall schooling attainment. Both studies predict an overall increase of 0.6 grade for a child receiving grants from primary school through junior high school (grades 3-9).

More recent studies have explored alternative methodologies and data to study longer-run program impacts. Behrman, Parker, Todd, (2009, 2011) find that extended time participating in the program leads to significant improvements in grades completed, about 1 full grade for children who participate in the program for 6 years beginning at ages 9 to 12, compared to nonparticipating children. Studies based on structural estimation also find program effects of a similar magnitude (Todd and Wolpin, 2006; Attanasio, Meghir and Santiago, 2012). Parker and Vogl (2018), using nationally representative Census data from 2010, find that long-term impacts on total schooling attainment for children who grow up in a household with PROSPERA benefits are 1.4 grades both for men and women, compared with those in households not offered the program during childhood.

Overall, these diverse studies provide consistent evidence that the program significantly increases schooling levels. The evidence from the medium- and longer-term evaluations currently suggests program impacts of increasing final levels of schooling attainment by between 15% and 20%. However, these previous studies are all based on self-reported information on school enrollment and attendance obtained from a household survey, raising concerns about whether there could be some reporting biases that are systematically related to program participation. For instance, beneficiary households, knowing that benefits are conditional on their children attending school might over-report their children’s enrollment and attendance. Our study avoids 7