|||**Untre**|**ated (**|**Bolsa **|**Famili**|**a=0)**||**Trea**|**ted (B**|**olsa F**|**amilia**|**=1)**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**N**|**mean**|**sd**|**min**|**max**|**p50**|**N**|**mean**|**sd**|**min**|**max**|**p50**|
|**School Enrolment (share)**|||||||||||||
|Children / Teenager|23,710|0.77|0.38|0|1|1|8,357|0.82|0.29|0|1|1|
|Age 06-17|18,184|0.94|0.21|0|1|1|7,447|0.95|0.17|0|1|1|
|Age 00-03|7,310|0.20|0.39|0|1|0|2,606|0.16|0.35|0|1|0|
|Age 04-05|4,092|0.74|0.44|0|1|1|1,936|0.75|0.43|0|1|1|
|Age 06-15|15,734|0.97|0.15|0|1|1|6,993|0.98|0.12|0|1|1|
|Age 06-09|7,781|0.98|0.14|0|1|1|4,028|0.98|0.14|0|1|1|
|Age 10-15|10,733|0.97|0.16|0|1|1|5,233|0.98|0.14|0|1|1|
|Age 16-17|4,541|0.82|0.38|0|1|1|1,952|0.80|0.39|0|1|1|
|Age 18-25|15,981|0.31|0.44|0|1|0|3,541|0.28|0.42|0|1|0|
|**Child labor (share)**|||||||||||||
|Age 06-17|15,734|0.05|0.19|0|1|0|6,993|0.08|0.24|0|1|0|
|Age 16-17|23,710|0.06|0.22|0|1|0|8,357|0.10|0.24|0|1|0|
|**Health Service Constraint**|||||||||||||
|Service (household-number)|46,827|0.27|0.61|0|9|0|9,149|0.68|0.96|0|11|0|
|Pharmaceutical (household-number)|46,827|0.25|0.58|0|9|0|9,149|0.70|0.93|0|7|0|
|Service (children-number)|23,710|0.02|0.17|0|4|0|8,357|0.08|0.35|0|5|0|
|Pharmaceutical (children-number)|23,710|0.02|0.15|0|5|0|8,357|0.07|0.32|0|4|0|
|Service (household-share)|46,827|0.10|0.23|0|1|0|9,149|0.16|0.22|0|1|0|
|Pharmaceutical (household-share)|46,827|0.09|0.22|0|1|0|9,149|0.16|0.22|0|1|0|
|Service (children-share)|23,710|0.01|0.10|0|1|0|8,357|0.03|0.15|0|1|0|
|Pharmaceutical (children-share)|23,710|0.01|0.08|0|1|0|8,357|0.03|0.14|0|1|0|
|**Health Insurance (share)**|||||||||||||
|Total|46,827|0.32|0.43|0|1|0|9,149|0.05|0.19|0|1|0|
|Female|42,758|0.33|0.45|0|1|0|9,087|0.05|0.20|0|1|0|
|Male|41,643|0.30|0.44|0|1|0|8,755|0.05|0.20|0|1|0|
|Age 06-15|15,734|0.29|0.45|0|1|0|6,993|0.05|0.22|0|1|0|

Table 5: Descriptive statistics (health and education) by BFPs’ conditionality) the mean of the share of children enrolled at school by household is at 77% and 88% for untreated and treated respectively. However, among teenagers (16 and 17 years old) the mean is larger among the untreated households (82% against 80%). Also, the mean of the share of children between 0 and 3 in school is larger among the untreated (20% against 16%).

Table 5 shows that the proportion of individuals in the households that reported a medication or medical services constraint<sup>60</sup> is much larger among the treated (0.68 against 0.27 among the untreated). In the case of access to pharmaceuticals<sup>61</sup> the difference is almost threefold (0.70 among the treated against 0.25 among the untreated). Households which report health service constraints have a higher number of children on average. These differences could be explained by the fact that BFP households have more members. The share of members within the household that reported constraints is also larger among beneficiaries. The difference in the number of households covered by health insurance<sup>62</sup> is large. Only 5% of BFP’s beneficiaries are covered by health insurance compared to 33% of the untreated households.

> 60The question on POF 4 is the following: have you needed any health service in the last 90 days but did not use it because of a budgetary constraint?

> 61The question on POF 4 is the following: have you needed any pharmaceutical product in the last 30 days but did not buy it because of a budgetary constraint?

> 62Brazil has a system of universal access to public health care (Sistem  ́Unico de sa ́ude) which provides health services to its population free of charge. Since this system covers not only basic services, but also complex and sometimes expensive health treatments, it usually lacks the capacity to provide the services demanded.

26