program impacts. For example, while several systematic reviews cover multiple program impacts, they tend to stop short of reporting average effect sizes and include only count measures of the number of significant positive or negative results. At the same time, the more empirically detailed meta‐analyses focus on only a limited number of program impacts, such as education, rather than covering multiple dimensions of program impacts. Our meta‐analysis aims to address these shortcomings by (i) focusing only on safety programs in Africa, and (ii) generating average effect sizes for a range of program impacts.

The results from our meta‐analysis point to several key findings. First, the evidence from safety net program evaluations across Africa shows that programs significantly increase consumption among beneficiaries. Per dollar transferred to beneficiary households, we estimate that on average 74 cents goes towards consumption. We interpret this result as strong evidence that well‐targeted programs can be effective at reducing inequity and alleviating extreme poverty. Furthermore, an average of 36 cents per dollar transferred goes specifically towards food, indicating that safety nets are used to raise standards of living and improve household welfare.

Second, we find promising results on asset accumulation by beneficiaries. For example, on average livestock ownership increases by 34% and ownership of other household and business durables increases by 10%. When examining impacts on incomes, the meta‐analysis finds an average increase in earnings of 50% and an average increase in business ownership of 70%. One interpretation is that beneficiaries may use accumulated assets to improve their labor productivity and earnings, although the causal link between these results is not clarified in any of the studies included in the meta‐analysis.

Third, across Africa the results on human development findings are less robust, at least for those recorded in a comparable way. For example, while well studied in impact evaluations, the pooled results on school enrollment and attendance are not significant. Several explanations are put forward in the various individual studies, including measurement error, problems with teacher absence and school access, and high initial enrollment rates, at least at primary levels. A more detailed analysis of design and implementation factors indicates that programs with strong messaging around education and a focus on children as beneficiaries tend to be more effective at improving educational outcomes. Yet, it is worth noting that many safety net programs in Africa do not achieve impacts on education as strong as those of conditional cash programs in Latin America, including Bolsa Família in Brazil and Prospera in Mexico, that are often used to argue for such programs.

Fourth, like the findings for human development, the results from our meta‐analysis on resilience improvement mechanisms are also less robust. For example, the impacts of safety net programs on the use of child labor or wage work are insignificant, and the impacts on monetary saving are only weakly significant. Again, several explanations are put forward in the individual studies, such as low empirical power to detect results on these outcomes, the size of transfers being insufficient to eliminate negative coping behaviors, and other implementation factors like payment regularity. As improved resilience is becoming an important goal for safety net programs, this is an area where stronger evidence would be valuable.

3