consumption among non‐beneficiaries within local communities are discussed, using the research generated through the Protection to Production Project.<sup>10</sup> From a total of 27 programs covered in our review, 12 discuss findings on total or food consumption, of which 6 are positive and statistically significant.<sup>11</sup> Of the other programs, a further 8 have evaluations considering alternative food security measures to track either overall household welfare or nutrition measures for children, and most of these find at least one measure showing positive significant program impact.<sup>12</sup> The remaining program evaluations are focused on other outcomes of interest such as human development outcomes and local economy effects. Of the programs reporting consumption outcomes, the majority are currently operating at a national level, although at the time of the evaluation many were operating at a smaller scale and the evaluation results cover samples ranging between about 1,500‐5,000 households. The length of evaluated exposure ranges from 4 months to 3 years: 8 evaluations cover an exposure period of two or more years, 2 evaluations cover 1 year and 3 cover shorter seasonal interventions (Sierra Leone CFW, Malawi MASAF, Kenya GIVE). The underlying design and implementation factors that drive the presented results are discussed in the subsequent section.

Our analysis suggests considerable effect sizes of safety net programs on total consumption. Figure 2 highlights a general pattern of positive consumption impacts, with a statistically significant mean effect of 74% [95% CI: 9 to 139%], implying that for every dollar transferred 74 cents are spent on consumption. 13,14 Households benefit from the fungible nature of cash transfers, which dominate this sample. Transfers are used as an opportunity to improve quality of life with a focus on purchasing food as well as non‐food items, especially clothing and footwear (especially for children), as well as education. For example, out of all programs considered the Zambia CGP finds one of the strongest positive effects on total consumption with 76% of benefits going towards food, followed by health and hygiene (7%), clothing (6%) and communication/transportation (6%).<sup>15</sup> This program also highlights an increase in consumption which exceeds the total transfer received, suggesting evidence for the multiplier potential for safety nets.<sup>16</sup> When examining the impacts on food consumption directly, the results across programs are also generally strong, with a statistically significant mean effect of 36% [95% CI: 0 to 71%] of the transfer size (see also

> 10 Consortium of FAO, UNICEF, UNC‐Chapel Hill, Save the Children researchers and practitioners: <u>http://www.fao.org/economic/ptop/home/en/. Also see related consortium on the Transfer Project: https://transfer.cpc.unc.edu/ .</u>

> 11 CFW*, CTOVC*, GIVE*, HSNP*, LCGP, LEAP, NSNP, MASAF, PSNP, SCTP*, TASAF, ZCGP* report on either total or food consumption. * indicates program found significant impacts.

> 12 Some caution is needed to avoid misinterpreting these results. Studies often report multiple measures for food security and nutrition improvements among children and not all measures show significant improvements.

13 The Ethiopia EGS/FFD program also finds robust higher consumption growth among beneficiaries, equivalent to approximately 4‐5% higher growth per year. Due to the methodology of measuring consumption growth rather than levels impacts, it has not been included in the meta‐analysis as it is not directly comparable. 14 Sources: Gilligan et al. 2008 (Ethiopia PSNP), Ward et al. 2010 (Kenya CTOVC), Handa and Park 2013 (Ghana LEAP), Pellerano et al. 2014 (Lesotho LCGP), Seidenfeld et al. 2013 (Zambia ZCGP), Merttens et al. (2013), Haushofer and Shapiro 2016 (Kenya GIVE), Abdoulayi et al. 2015 (Malawi SCTP). Omitted estimates include the following extreme outliers: Malawi SCTP (148% [80%, 216%]) and Ghana LEAP (‐36% [‐186%, 114%]. 15 Seidenfeld et al. 2013 (Zambia CGP).

> 16 This theme will be revisited later questioning how and why such transformative impacts come about.

9