instruments of improvement in outreach and program take‐up. This requires clarity across all institutional arrangements and a clear assessment of the supply of services from the launch of a project. This implies coordination with sectoral ministries, but also greater coordination in public financial management and governance to ensure the integrity and transparency of delivery in multi‐sectoral systems.

**A multidimensional poverty reduction approach may be better suited than a traditional safety net approach to supporting productive inclusion** . The meta‐analysis suggests that, for the sample of African countries, safety nets are not distorting labor market outcomes, but they are also not equipping beneficiaries adequately to participate fully in productive activities. While some results are promising, simple participation in a safety net program does not guarantee beneficiaries a pathway out of poverty. Meanwhile, several approaches are emerging that may better foster the productive characteristics of low‐ income households in the African context. First, there is considerable focus on—as well as confusion about—the graduation of beneficiaries out of safety net programs. The findings of impact evaluations are limited on this issue. An important recent study on the BRAC Targeting the Ultra Poor Program provides encouraging evidence on a multifaceted graduation approach evaluated across six countries, including Ethiopia and Ghana in the African region (Banerjee et al. 2015). Although outcomes varied by country, the overall outcomes were both promising and persistent. The study concludes that beneficiaries spent an average of 17.5 more minutes a day working, mostly tending to livestock, 10 percent more than their peers. Most strikingly, the study argues that, despite the heavy unit cost of the program, the program would have benefits of between 1.3 and 4.3 times the expenditure. If such programs can truly graduate beneficiaries from poverty, then the cost may be justifiable vis‐à‐vis more permanent safety net transfers. However, important work needs to be done to evaluate whether this type of intervention can be taken to scale and still obtain as strong results as with pilot populations.

**In the future, both planned and ongoing safety net programs might consider how to integrate complementary interventions to boost productive and employment outcomes.** It is important to note that the productive employment impacts analyzed in our meta‐analysis relate to traditionally conceived safety net interventions. In recent years there has been growing focus on how large cash grants – typically blended with labor market activation, skills training – can lead to improved employment opportunities for select groups e.g. youth. Unlike traditional safety net interventions, the core objective surrounding such programs are employment creation. For example, the Youth Opportunities Program in Uganda provides a one‐time grant to groups of youth, worth roughly $382 per member, sees increases in business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38% (Blattman et al., 2013). Many also formalize their enterprises and hire labor.

# 4. Discussion

**The primary purpose of a safety net program is to provide for a minimum level of well‐being and help extremely poor and vulnerable households meet their daily basic needs.** As shown in the meta‐analysis, consumption rises an average of $0.74 and food consumption expands an average of $0.36 per dollar transferred. These findings are complemented by improvements in food security indicators and increases

28