The effects of vouchers for essential household items on child health, mental health, resilience and social cohesion among internally displaced persons in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Abstract

About 3ie The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) promotes evidence-informed, equitable, inclusive and sustainable development. We support the generation and effective use of high-quality evidence to inform decision-making and improve the lives of people living in poverty in low-and middle-income countries. We provide guidance and support to produce, synthesise and quality assure evidence of what works, for whom, how, why and at what cost. 3ie impact evaluations 3ie-supported impact evaluations assess the difference a development intervention has made to social and economic outcomes. 3ie is committed to funding rigorous evaluations that include a theory-based design and that use the most appropriate mix of methods to capture outcomes and are useful in complex development contexts. About this report 3ie accepted the final version of the report, Rebuilding the social compact: urban service delivery and property taxes in Pakistan, as partial fulfilment of requirements under grant DPW1.1005 awarded through Development Priorities Window 1. The report is technically sound and 3ie is making it available to the public in this final report version as it was received. No further work has been done. The 3ie technical quality assurance team for this report comprises Francis Rathinam, Neeta Goel, Kanika Jha Kingra and Deeksha Ahuja, an anonymous external impact evaluation design expert reviewer and an anonymous external sector expert reviewer, with overall technical supervision by Marie Gaarder. The 3ie editorial production team for this report comprises Anushruti Ganguly and Akarsh Gupta.

Contributions of experimental approaches to development and poverty alleviation: Field experiments and humanitarian assistance

“…The studies fit within standard implementation design. Second, Quattrochi et al (2019) hired a dedicated research coordinator to remain in close contact with the two intergovernmental agencies, four international NGOs, and three data collection teams involved in the study. Third, in both cases, the research team built partnerships with organizations, rather than with individuals inside the organizations, and ensured open communications with all parties.…”

“…Nevertheless, over the past few years, there has been a shift in researcher effort and donor funding towards randomized control trials (RCTs) to evaluate humanitarian assistance. For example, the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), with support from the UK's Department for International Development (DfID) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), recently have funded several RCTs in emergency settings, including Quattrochi et al (2019). DfID also currently supports Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) and the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) to launch programs in fragile contexts (Edwards 2018).…”

“…Because cash was less expensive to provide (and markets were available), the study suggests that, from a cost-effectiveness perspective, cash is the preferred aid modality. In the second study, Quattrochi et al (2019) collaborated with the UN's Rapid Response to Movements of Population (RRMP) program to assess the impact of vouchers for IDPs and host families. Households were randomly assigned to receive either a voucher for essential household items or no voucher.…”

“…However, in emergency settings, things have to move quickly, for a variety of reasons. In Quattrochi et al (2019), for example, there was only a two-week window between the RRMP program's decision to intervene and the distribution of vouchers. In Aker (2017), the funding cycle of the interventions similarly required quick decisions.…”

Field Experiments and Humanitarian Assistance

“…However, in emergency settings, things have to move quickly, for a variety of reasons. In Quattrochi et al (2019), for example, there was only a two-week window between the RRMP program's decision to intervene and the distribution of vouchers. In Aker (2017), the funding cycle of the interventions similarly required quick decisions.…”