<mark>points to the importance of targeting to make CCTs and scholarship programs cost-effective.</mark><sup>28</sup> <mark>Similarly, Filmer and Schady (2014) look at the medium-term effects of a scholarship program in Cambodia that was targeted to students eligible to attend lower secondary school but deemed to be at higher risk of dropping out (via the use of a “dropout-risk” score). Two years after the end of the program, the authors find a substantial effect on school enrollment and grade attainment, the latter of which increased by 0.6 years.</mark><sup>29</sup> <mark>Thus, these results further highlight the cost-effectiveness of targeting marginal students. However, Filmer and Schady (2014) find no effects on test scores, marriage or teen pregnancy (perhaps indicating that larger effects on enrollment are needed to have meaningful knock-on effects to these other outcomes).</mark> _Other School Related In-Kind Transfers:_ There are other in-kind transfer programs (beyond school fee reductions and scholarship programs) that are conditional on going to school and/or are only valued if children attend school (e.g., school uniform provision, provision of bikes to girls attending secondary school, and school feeding programs). The effects of these programs on enrollment and learning are typically positive, while the effects on fertility and marriage are less understood.

Duflo et al. (2015) study the provision of free school uniforms to 6<sup>th</sup> graders in Western Kenya (mean age 13) with the promise of another uniform 18 months later if they are still enrolled at the same school. They find small but sustained effects of the program on dropout, grades completed, ever pregnant, and ever married at three-, five-, and seven-year follow-ups, with no effects on STI prevalence. They argue that the monetary value of the subsidy is too small to cause an income effect on these outcomes and point to the price effect as the underlying mechanism. The sustained longer-term effects also rule out ‘incarceration effects’ of education on marriage and pregnancy and are consistent with the effects of CCTs on baseline dropouts in Baird et al. (2019) – in the sense that reductions in dropouts having knock-on effects of teen pregnancies and child marriages. <mark>Muralidharan and Prakash (2017) find that providing girls who continued to secondary school with bicycles increases both enrollment and the number of girls showing up and passing a high stakes secondary-school certificate exam but do not investigate the effects on marriage or fertility.</mark> <mark>Finally, school-feeding programs have recently been categorized as promising for improving both school participation and learning, but the evidence is mixed. Snilstveit et al. (2016) reviews 16 studies and finds positive but imprecise effects on enrollment, likely because the success of these programs is context-specific and they are more likely to succeed in attracting children to schools and preventing dropouts when malnutrition rates are high and school participation is low. The evidence base on learning and test scores is a little more promising – with two reviews suggesting that school meals can help improve test scores, albeit modestly</mark>

> 28 While Duflo et al. (2021) and Baird et al. (2019) highlight the gains from targeting marginal students, targeting students based on whether they are initially enrolled is unfortunately not incentive compatible in the long-term. Developing strategies to target marginal students in incentive compatible ways, we believe, is an important area for future research and is discussed further in Section 5.

> 29 <mark>While this impact on grade attainment may initially seem small, it is worthwhile to note that it is about twice the size of that seen in PROGRESA (</mark> Behrman et al. 2011, pp 112-1 <mark>3) despite the scholarship being an order of magnitude smaller than the PROGRESA grants.</mark>

50