Upload
vucong
View
214
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CASH TRANSFERS AND CHILD WELL-BEING IN SINGAPORE : AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF
THE SCHOOL POCKET MONEY FUND
Chang-Keun Han1 David W. Rothwell
2 Eunice Lin
3
1 Assistant Professor, National University of Singapore Department of Social Work, Block AS3, Level 4, 3 Arts
Link, Singapore 117570; [email protected] 2 Assistant Professor, McGill University School of Social Work 2506 University Street, Suite 300, Montreal,
Quebec H3A 2A7; [email protected], http://www.mcgill.ca/socialwork/faculty/rothwell 3 Assistant Director, National Council of Social Service, Singapore; [email protected]
This is the preprint version of the work. The definitive version was published in the Asia
Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development as:
Han, C. K., Rothwell, D. W. & Lin, E. (2012). Cash Transfers and Child Well-being in
Singapore: An Exploratory Study of the School Pocket Money Fund. Asia Pacific Journal
of Social Work and Development, 22(1-2), 36-49. doi: 10.1080/02185385.2012.681143.
(http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02185385.2012.681143#.Uaz5kcqOmho)
2
Cash Transfers and Child Well-being in Singapore: An Exploratory Study
of the School Pocket Money Fund
Chang-Keun Han, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Social Welfare
Sungkyunkwan University, Korea
David W. Rothwell, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
School of Social Work
McGill University, Canada
Eunice Lin
Assistant Director
National Council of Social Service, Singapore
3
Abstract
This exploratory study aimed to identify how a nation-wide cash transfer programme, the
Straits Times’ School Pocket Money Fund (SPMF), has influenced the education
performance of children from low-income families in Singapore. Data were collected from
400 pairs of parents and children of SPMF, 172 school reports, and 35 in-depth interviews.
Descriptive and correlation analyses were run. We found that SPMF may be a supporting
factor in helping children stay in school. Additionally, receipt of SPMF was positively related
to children’s performance, level of engagement in school, and a higher level of confidence in
achieving educational goals. We conclude by suggesting research and policy implications.
Key words: School Pocket Money Fund, conditional cash transfer, educational outcomes,
Singapore
4
Introduction
The effects of childhood poverty are multi-faceted. Those in poverty experience deprivation
across a range of dimensions such as limited access to healthcare, education services resulting
in inadequate standards of living, increased risk of poor health, and lower self-esteem and
isolation to name a few (Barrientos & DeJong, 2004; Saunders, Naidoo, & Griffiths, 2007).
The effects of childhood poverty are also enduring since it is strongly associated with fewer
years of schooling and poorer educational achievements, both of which limit future
productive capacity and standards of living (Barrientos & DeJong, 2004). Some factors that
have contributed to fewer years of schooling include the high cost of education and
educational-related expenses, opportunity costs from not going out to work early, and poor
nutrition (Behrman, 2000; Glewwe, Jacoby, & King, 2001; Grantham-McGregor et al.,
2007).
Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programmes have been introduced to tackle child
and intergenerational poverty. By providing child-related cash benefits, the CCT intends to
encourage children to attend schools and to report health conditions regularly. The CCT
programmes are characterised as a mix of traditional social assistance policy and incentives
for behavioural changes in low-income households by increasing investment in human capital
(Kamerman & Gatenio-Gabel, 2010). Families in CCT programmes receive cash transfers
that are conditional upon completing certain pre-determined behavioural tasks. To date, it is
estimated that about 30 countries have implemented some form of CCT programmes. Since
the first CCT programmes were initiated in Latin American countries, the CCT has expanded
to countries in Asia and Africa (Kamerman & Gatenio-Gabel, 2010).
A growing body of research has examined effectiveness of CCTs (Skoufias, 2005;
Hoddinot & Skoufias, 2005; Maluccio & Flores, 2004). In general, CCT programmes have
5
been successful in meeting their objectives. They have been found to meet the basic
consumption needs, encourage the use of health services, decrease malnutrition and its effects
on children, raise educational levels and lower school drop-out rates. However, there are
critical discussions about the effectiveness of CCT programmes targeted at helping children
in poverty increase their years of schooling. Firstly, Calvo’s (2011) review of CCT’s
educational impact found that where school enrolment was already high, such programmes
yielded far less significant gains. Secondly, Calvo (2011) exerts that most literature focusing
on school attendance does not consider the school achievements of children on such CCT
programmes in addition to their attendance. Thirdly, given that CCT programmes do not
single-handedly raise the income or consumption of children directly, but instead, supplement
the household income of families with children who are eligible for the CCT, its impact is
dependent on the response of the household and the decision of its most influential members
on how and what the cash transfers are spent on (Barrientos & DeJong, 2004). Decisions on
how money is spent are therefore dependent on cultural contexts of familial roles and each
member’s bargaining power.
In Singapore, the Straits’ Times – Singapore’s largest English language daily
newspaper—started a charity project in 2001 called the School Pocket Money Fund (SPMF).
The Fund was designed to help low-income children with basic school-related expenses by
providing cash transfers conditional on attendance. However, we do not know how effective
SPMF is because there have been no evaluation studies on SPMF. Given the dearth of
literature available on SPMF, it remains largely unknown whether the CCT programme in
Singapore is effective in enhancing the well-being of children locally.
This study therefore aims to explore the associations between Singapore’s ten-year
old CCT programme and children’s well-being, in particular, educational outcomes. More
6
specifically, this study examines how SPMF has influenced children’s school attendance,
level of engagement in school, and school performance.
Context in Singapore
The majority of the research on childhood poverty has taken place in developing countries or
Western developed countries. Singapore is neither. The Republic of Singapore has achieved
rapid growth and development within 50 years, joining the ranks of the world’s most
developed countries. Today, her per capita nominal Gross Domestic Product is higher than
that of most Western developed countries and has seen a remarkable 100-fold increase from
US$400 in 1960 to more than US$40,000 in 2010 (MOE, 2011). Nonetheless, relative
poverty exists amongst those who have not profited from Singapore’s economic success
(Ang, 1999; Liu & Wu, 1998).
Understanding the nature of poverty in Singapore is difficult. Although Singapore
does not have an official poverty line, the number and percentage of the population receiving
Government’s Public Assistance Scheme (PAS) is one indicator of economic hardship (Liu &
Wu, 1998). Potential PAS recipients are rigorously means-tested and granted these
allowances only if they are unable to work because of illness, old age, disability or
unfavourable family circumstances and only if they do not have any means of support or
anyone to depend on. For these Singapore citizens, they are granted a monthly allowance of
S$400 for single-person households or S$263 per capita in four-person households based on
the principle of economies of scale on household expenditure for larger families. Given the
stringent criteria, only 2,929 persons (less than 1% of eligible population) qualified for the
scheme in 2010 (MCYS, 2011).
Another indicator used to identify who the poor in Singapore is the bottom 20% of the
per capita household income distribution (Liu & Wu, 1998). Based on the government’s
7
Report on the Household Expenditure Survey 2007/08, the monthly household income per
capita of the lowest 20% was S$365 (MTI, 2008). Most other government financial
assistance schemes are therefore made available to those who belong to this segment of the
population. For example, the Ministry of Education’s Financial Assistance Scheme (MOE’s
FAS) is for students whose households earn less than S$375 per capita per month on average
(MOE, 2011). Given the lack of published data on the extent of childhood poverty in
Singapore, a useful proxy indicator therefore, is the number of students who are currently on
this scheme, which as of October 2011, was 42,430 (approximately 8% of eligible school
population) (MOE, 2011).
Despite the government’s efforts to provide free primary, secondary and higher
education, textbooks and school attire for students under the MOE FAS, there are numerous
barriers for low-income children and families. Many children from low-income families may
attend school irregularly or on empty stomachs throughout the long school day, hindering
their ability to focus, learn and do well in school.
Children receiving SPMF would receive the transfers as long as they and their
families meet the eligibility criteria4. The SPMF programme can be seen as a CCT
programme because only children who were in full-time education in approved institutions
were eligible for the Fund5. Social workers across 64 Voluntary Welfare Organisations
4 The SPMF has undergone four reviews since its inception to revise the household income criteria to factor in
economic conditions, the maximum duration and quantum disbursed to children of different ages for example.
5 At the point of the study, to be eligible for SPMF, the applicant (i.e. the child) had to fulfil the following
criteria:
a) A Singapore citizen or permanent resident
b) A full-time student studying in the following institutions:
• a mainstream primary or secondary school
• a special education school
• a religious school such as a madrasah
c) Living in a Housing Development Board four-room flat or smaller
d) From a family whose per capita gross monthly household income is not more than $450
e) Must not have been on the fund for more than two years.
8
(VWOs) assess children and their family’s applicability before providing them with SPMF.
Children from low-income families can only receive SPMF for a maximum of two years
unless under proven exceptional circumstances are they allowed to benefit from the
programme for an extra six months6. Over the past 10 years, 86,000 children have
participated in SPMF (The Straits Times, 2011).
SPMF therefore joins the ranks of several other CCT programmes which have been
implemented worldwide to encourage and enable children living in poverty to attend school.
Besides gains in education, other benefits of CCT programmes are that they facilitate and
strengthen the capacity of households to invest in their children’s development holistically
(Barrientos & DeJong, 2004). Such programmes have also tended to draw other forms of
support such as access to social services to these children and their low-income families. A
further benefit of CCT programmes is that there is less stigma associated with the
disadvantaged receiving such assistance since the money can be spent as necessary by the
child rather than having to be seen collecting food or transport vouchers (Barrientos &
DeJong, 2004; Pinkerton & Muhangi, 2009).
Methods
Procedures for a multi-mode method
The first step in the study was identifying study participants. With the support from the
National Council on Social Services (NCSS), the researchers encouraged VWOs distributing
SPMF to participate in the study. Based on the profile of SPMF participants across the 64
agencies, the research team narrowed down the target sample to families where the child was
at least 11 years of age at the point of the interview to ensure that the children would be able
6 Upon the completion of authors’ evaluation study and based on its recommendations, The Straits’ Times
agreed to increase the maximum duration for which children experiencing extreme poverty or difficult family
situations are able to receive SPMF for from two and a half years to four years.
9
to understand and articulate the impact of SPMF on them, their parents, and family
functioning. In addition, the target sample was restricted to those who received SPMF
between 2007 and 2009. Agencies which had fewer than five children who met both criteria
were excluded from the study. Considering the age of the child, the timeline of SPMF receipt,
and the number of SPMF participants per agency, we selected 45 agencies out of 64 who had
eligible participants. Although all the 45 VWOs were invited to participate, only 29 VWOs
participated. In total, they provided the contact information of 1,177 SPMF families which
constituted the sampling frame. The study was approved by the National University of
Singapore (NUS) Institutional Review Board (IRB) (NUS-IRB reference code 10-192).
Survey participation was completely voluntary and responses were kept confidential
and anonymous to encourage participants to give candid responses. Interviewers first
contacted parents by phone and explained the study and asked them to participate. Before
they started interview, the consent form was signed by parents. The interviews took on
average 60 to 80 minutes to complete. Each family who completed the interview received a
S$10 supermarket voucher as a token of appreciation. The field work for interviews was
conducted from July 1, 2010 to November 14, 2010 by a market research firm located in
Singapore. Data collection was terminated when 400 cases of families completed interviews.
Measurement
Separate questionnaires were developed for parents and children. One of key measures in this
study is perception toward SPMF. We asked the perception questions to both parents and
children. All of the questions were measured using a Likert-type scale ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) except for educational confidence which was measured
ranging from no confidence at all (1) to completely confident (10).
10
The parent questionnaire assessed perceptions on a number of SPMF-related topics
such as usefulness of funds, effectiveness and impact. The child questionnaire asked their
perceptions towards SPMF, how much pocket money they received, their school performance,
and attitudes toward schooling.
For the in-depth interviews with parents and children, an interview team contacted
families to schedule interviews. Only 35 families out of 400 families participated. It took two
months to reach and conduct interviews with the convenient sample of 35 families. A semi-
structured interview guide was used to gather views on how they used SPMF in the family,
their perception of SPMF on whether and how it had been useful and its impact on areas
which this study set out to explore. Survey questionnaires were translated from English into
Malay or Mandarin and interviews were conducted in participants’ preferred language.
To complement self-reported questionnaires, we compared their school report cards
before and after receiving SPMF. The strength of this strategy was that it provided more
objective information to determine the impact of SPMF on the children’s educational
outcomes. As indicators of school performance and engagement in school and activities, we
selected overall grades, Co-Curricular Activity (CCA) participation as an indicator of school
engagement, and school attendance as measures. Overall grade was classified as either a Pass
or Fail. The CCA participation was a dichotomous variable coded as yes or no. The school
attendance was recorded to a rating scale with 100 indicating full attendance in school. The
ratio was derived by dividing each child’s total attendance by the total school days per
semester. The reporting rate of the report cards was 172 of the 400 (43%). We examined how
demographic differences between those with and those without report cards. We found no
significant differences between the two groups along most characteristics (e.g., parents’ age,
gender and race, household income, and child’s gender and race). However, we found that the
11
average age of children who submitted their report cards was higher than those who did not
(14.3 vs. 13.7).
Statistical analysis plan
Univariate analysis was used to understand key features of participants (See Tables 1 and 2).
Participants’ perception toward SPMF was analysed using univariate statistics. We also used
bivariate correlation analysis to examine how perceptions toward SPMF are related to
educational confidence.
Using the school report cards, we analysed how students’ grades, school involvement,
and attendance changed before and after participation in SPMF. Cross-tabulation for
categorical variables (grade and school involvement) and independent t-test for a continuous
variable (attendance) were adopted for the analyses.
Data analysis of the in-depth interviews took place in a three-step process. First, the
data were organized and prepared. Data (responses and interviewer notes) from separate
interviews were collated into one qualitative database and sorted by question topic. Second,
the data were read in its entirety to gain a general sense of the data. Third, we analyzed the
data and generated initial codes, themes, and clusters. This coding process involved, “taking
text data or pictures, segmenting sentences or images into categories, and labelling those
categories with a term” (Creswell, 2003, p. 92). Once codes were generated they were
grouped into higher level themes that addressed the research questions outlined.
Results
Participants
Descriptive analysis of the study sample is presented in Table 1. Some noteworthy findings
from the demographic analysis are as follows: firstly, Malays (53.3%) made up a slight
majority, followed by Chinese and Indians. This ethnic breakdown was consistent with the
12
actual distribution of those receiving SPMF. Secondly, participants reported relatively low
household incomes, balance of income at the end of month, and financial assets. About 13%
of participants had monthly household income less than S$500 while only 12.3% of families
had monthly household income more than S$1,600, confirming that those who were on the
CCT programme were indeed the needy group. Thirdly, parents and guardians of the children
had low educational achievements themselves with about half (46%) the sample attaining
only primary school qualifications or less and only 7.8% of the sample graduated from higher
education, i.e. Institute of Technical Education (ITE), Polytechnic, or University. Fourthly,
66.5% of households had their own home which is much lower than the homeownership rate
(89%) of the Singapore population (DOS, 2011). Lastly, 13.5% of the participants reported
that they had poor health and 30.5% said they had merely a fair health status. These findings
suggest that SPMF participants are likely to be more vulnerable in terms of their social and
economic status.
[INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]
A few notable aspects of Table 2 are that firstly, unlike their parents, the majority of
the children reported good, very good, or excellent health status. Only 11.6% of children
reported poor or fair health status. Secondly, children reported high educational aspirations in
that 38.4% wished to proceed to Polytechnic and 38.1% to University. Thirdly, we found that
the majority of children have talked with parents about their educational goals. However, it
was reported that 22.5% of children have hardly ever or almost never talked about the goals.
Lastly, on a scale that ranged from 1 (no confidence at all) to 10 (completely confident),
children had a moderate level of confidence in the educational aspiration (M = 6.75).
[INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE]
Findings from survey interviews
13
We asked both parents and children about their perception toward SPMF and the extent to
which it helped children perform better in school (see Tables 3 and 4 below). In general,
parents and children both expressed positive perceptions toward SPMF. Parents’ top three
priorities were on their child’s school-going financial needs, reduced economic hardship, and
improved family budgeting.
[INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE]
Children had the most positive views of SPMF in these three areas: helping them feel
less self-conscious about not having money, helping them save some money, and helping
them to pay for school-related items. We also found that, by and large, children’s perception
was more positive than parents’.
[INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE]
Bivariate correlation analysis was used to examine the relationship between perceived
effectiveness of SPMF and confidence in achieving educational goals. Fourteen indicators of
the perceived effectiveness of SPMF were used for the correlations analysis (See Table 5).
We found that 11 indicators of the SPMF perceived effectiveness were significantly
associated with children’s confidence in achieving their educational goals. This finding
suggests that children with positive perception of SPMF effectiveness were more likely to
have higher confidence in achieving their educational goals. This bears well for Singapore
since it may indicate that with a higher level of confidence towards achieving one’s academic
goals, they may in fact perform better academically which may give them a better chance of
breaking out of the poverty cycle. This finding suggests that SPMF provided hope to children
to pursue higher education in the future.
[INSERT TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE]
Findings from school report cards
14
To broadly determine how children fared academically, we classified the children’s overall
grade either as a Pass or Fail (see Table 6). The findings suggest that SPMF helped children
from low-income families maintain their school grade – 16.5% of students failed both before
and after receiving SPMF while the majority (61.2%) of children passed before and after
receiving SPMF.
We further analyzed the ratio of grade changes before and after SPMF participation.
Out of 37 students who failed before SPMF participation, 15 students passed after receiving
SPMF participation. This ratio is 40.5%. Contrarily, we found that only 15.5% (15 out of 97)
of students who passed before SPMF failed after receiving SPMF. These findings suggest
that SPMF participation preceded an improvement in school grades.
[INSERT TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE]
Using cross tabulation method, we also examined whether SPMF was associated with
the children’s engagement in school activities (see Table 7). Before SPMF participation, 96
(72.2%) children were found to participate in their CCAs but this increased to 105 (79%)
after they started receiving SPMF. This finding corresponds with parents’ and children’s
positive perception (M=3.80 in Table 3 and M=3.96 in Table 4, respectively) of how SPMF
helped them attend their CCA(s) more regularly.
In addition, 17 children out of 37 (46.0%) who did not participate in CCA before
SPMF began participating in a CCA after being on the CCT programme. Comparatively, only
8 (8.3%) out of 96 children who participated in CCA before SPMF were found not to
participate in CCA after receiving SPMF. These findings suggest that SPMF may positively
influence CCA participation.
[INSERT TABLE 7 ABOUT HERE]
15
We also calculated the children’s school attendance ratio to examine the extent to
which children attended school regularly. We then compared the mean attendance ratios
before and after SPMF participation and found that the attendance ratio slightly increased
from 95.24 to 95.84. However, similar to Calvo’s (2011) findings that CCT programmes had
a limited effect where school attendance is already high, the increase in school attendance
was not statistically significant in our sample. Nonetheless, despite the non-significant
finding, it is possible that SPMF may help students maintain their school attendance. Asked
for their perceptions on whether SPMF contributed towards school attendance, both parents
and children gave positive responses (M=3.93 in Table 3 and M=3.99 in Table 4,
respectively).
Findings from in-depth interviews
The in-depth interviews shed light on how SPMF helped facilitate school attendance by
defraying transportation costs. One child explained:
[SPMF] helped me go school more often [because I could] top up my ez-link
card7…without ez-link card, I walk to school.
A parent described the importance of transportation and how the SPMF facilitated
transportation:
Number one priority is transport. Let’s say for food, they can “ta bao” (pack)
at home and bring but if transport, no money, difficult. You cannot take cab
because cannot afford. So transport for us is the most important.
7 An ez-link card is a card with stored value to pay for public bus and train fares.
16
Numerous interviewees reported that SPMF funds helped the family acquire school
supplies and this may explain how SPMF helped improve school performance. For example,
one parent explained:
They used the money to buy textbooks and supplementary materials. I don’t
have enough to give them.
In a compelling explanation about the importance of SPMF, one parent manages the extra
household money that SPMF provides and how her child used it for school supplies:
I keep it for him. When he wants to buy books or what, I bring out a bit.
Mmm… until he says “Mummy I want to buy books, this book or what ah”, I
bring him to post office then she brings the money then I buy for him lah.
So he normally keeps the money to buy all the stationery like highlighters are
costing quite expensive. He use pen a lot and do lots of correction, if
highlighter finish he come back to me and I question him I just bought for you.
You know pen also, the pen only last him for one week 2 pens. He writes a lot.
His pen one is $2.20, the pilot something like that. Another one is what, boy
(asking her son)? So it is quite expensive so $1.80 - $2 so he normally saves
his own money to buy his own stationery.
Some parents responded that school performance had improved since their child
began receiving SPMF. After being asked if her child had improved academic performance
after participating in SPMF, one parent explained:
He performs better in his studies. He is good in his studies. He ranks number 5
in class. He is good in mathematics. He still has to work hard for it as it is not
easy when he is in Secondary 2.
Discussion & Conclusion
In all, these findings on the association between SPMF and education in the Singapore
context suggests that CCT programmes may help low-income children fare better
academically, encourage them to be more engaged in school activities and maintain their
17
regular attendance. The findings of this study indeed suggest that the Singapore’s largest
CCT programme has had considerable positive relationships with improvements of
educational outcomes of low-income children. These findings are consistent with literature
that has emerged in the past decade from 30 countries that CCT programmes are among the
most effective programs in terms of reaching the poor and helping them move forward
(Kamerman, 2009).
One surprising finding of this study is that children from low-income families who
may not even receive the entire sum of the cash transfer were keen to save. This finding is
also promising because saving may represent children’s aspiration to manage financial
resources against difficult times in the future. Studies from other contexts have focused on
the beneficial aspects that children’s savings can have on academic performance (Elliott,
Sherraden, Johnson & Guo, 2010).
Limitations
There are three sampling issues which should be noted. First, although we targeted SPMF
participants from all three types of VWOs which disburse SPMF (Family Service Centres
(FSCs), Special Schools (SSs), and Children’s Homes (CHs)), it should be noted that children
and families from FSCs were overrepresented. While we had 368 families from FSCs, there
were only 29 and 3 families from SSs and CHs, respectively. The small size of families from
SSs and CHs suggests that this study has limitations in generalizing the findings to all SPMF-
participating families. Second, we targeted children who were aged 11 years and above.
However, the study had some out-of-range samples where children below 11 years old had
participated (4.1%). Last, since Malay families are a majority of SPMF participants, we tried
to recruit more Malay families. However, interviewing Malay parents who could not speak
English was a challenge faced in this study. While we were able to translate the survey into
18
Malay, we had to rely on children to translate what their parents said in Malay during the in-
depth interviews into English for the interviewers who were not fluent with Malay. The
language barrier may have affected the accuracy of the respondents’ views in the in-depth
interviews.
Another limitation of the study was that the measurement of effectiveness of SPMF is
focused on subjective items. Although we collected children’s school report cards as a source
of objective data, it is possible that only those who had better results were willing to submit
the reports cards. Agencies delivering SPMF may adopt the practice that SPMF families are
supposed to present a copy of school reports periodically. Then, the information can be used
for SPMF evaluation in a more objective way.
With regard to the findings from this study, it is important to note that we found
correlation, and not causal, factors which have influenced the well-being of children from
low-income families in Singapore. Given that children who received SPMF may be qualified
for MOE’s FAS and may potentially be receiving other forms of financial, social and
educational assistance, it is not possible to isolate the positive findings on the children’s
educational outcomes to SPMF alone.
Policy, Practice & Research Implications
Arising from the findings of this study, three key policy and research considerations emerge.
Firstly, given that the findings suggest SPMF has positively influenced on school
achievements and children’s level of engagement in school, it may be worthwhile to
reconsider the maximum duration to which children can be on the programme so that these
benefits can be realised over time and hopefully sustained. Upon the completion of authors’
evaluation study and based on its recommendations, the Straits’ Times agreed to increase the
maximum duration for which children experiencing extreme poverty or difficult family
19
situations are able to receive SPMF for from two and a half years to four years. This is clearly
a step in the right direction even though this extension is only limited to a very small pool of
children today. More can still be done by extending this extension to all eligible children on
SPMF rather than just the select group since the two-year cap for majority of children is
considerably short-lived in light of that basic education in Singapore is at least ten years,
excluding higher education. Undoubtedly, the cost of extending the programme would be a
concern.
Secondly, given the promising finding that children are keen to save, a fundamental
change in policy could provide incentives to save. For example, SPMF eligibility could be
extended beyond the current two years cut-off, contingent on their ability to save a portion of
SPMF given to them each month. This additional criterion could potentially shape the
spending and saving habits of low-income families, incentivise behaviours that are useful to
help families break out of the poverty cycle, and enable children from poor families to
continue receiving cash transfers as long as they remain in mainstream education. In the
mean time, further research on child savings would be beneficial before embarking on a
major policy revision.
Thirdly, it is very possible that in families facing extreme poverty, children receive
very little of the money meant for them. While being aware that there are downsides to
increasing monitoring of how the money is spent and that the existing flexibility of how
SPMF is utilised by the family has been useful for those interviewed, the issue of how to
monitor the use of cash transfers deserves more consideration. Research on how low-income
Singaporean households allocate resources among different members in response to their
economic conditions, cultural scripts and adaptive requirements would shape policy on
whether to leave the use of the cash transfer flexible or monitored for intended use.
20
Lastly, future research can be designed to better estimate the impacts of SPMF by
comparing a SPMF participation group and a non-participation group. In addition, the
research should be designed prospectively and longitudinally to understand the impacts
before and after SPMF participation. With this comparative and longitudinal research design,
it would be possible to examine the SPMF impacts on families in a more robust way.
21
References
Adato, M. L. (2009). Social protection to support vulnerable children and families: the
potential of cash transfers to protect education, health and nutrition. AIDS Care, 2160-
75.
Ang, S. L. (1999). Country Paper on Poverty Measurement – the Case of Singapore.
Singapore Department of Statistics, retrieved from
http://www.unescap.org/stat/meet/povstat/pov7_sig.pdf
Barrientos, A. & DeJong, J. (2004). Child Poverty and Cash Transfers, Childhood Poverty
Research and Policy Centre Report No. 4.
Behrman, J.R. (2000). Literature review on interactions between health, education, and
nutrition and the potential benefits of intervening simultaneously in all three.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Calvo, C. (2011). Social Work and Conditional Cash Transfers in Latin America. Journal of
Sociology & Social Welfare, 38(3), 53-72.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DOS (2011). Households and Housing: Home Ownership Rate of Resident Households.
Department of Statistics, retrieved from
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/charts/hhld.html#hhld
Elliott, W., Sherraden, M., Johnson, L., & Guo, B. (2010). Young children’s perceptions of
college and saving: Potential role of child development accounts. Children and Youth
Services Review, 32(11), 1577-1584.
Glewwe, P., Jacoby, H., & King, E. (2001). Early childhood nutrition and academic
achievement: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 8, 345-368.
22
Grantham-McGregor, S., Cheung, Y.B., Cuerto, S., Glewwe, P., Richter, L., & Strupp, B.
(2007). Developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing countries.
The Lancet, 369(9555), 60-70.
Hoddinott, J. & Skoufias, E. (2005). The impact of PROGRESA on food consumption.
Economic Development and Change, 53(1), 37-61.
Kamerman, S. B. (2009). Families and family policies: Developing a holistic policy agenda.
Hong Kong Journal Paediatry, 14, 115-121.
Kamerman, S. B. & Gatenio-Gabel, S. (2010). Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs): A child
policy strategy in Asia. Presented at the International Conference on Economic Stress,
Human Capital, and Families in Asia, 3-4 June, Singapore.
Liu, E. & Wu, J. (1998). The Measurement of Poverty, Hong Kong: Research and Library
Services Division, Provisional Legislative Council Secretariat.
Maluccio, J. A. & Flores, R. (2004). Impact evaluation of a conditional cash transfer
program. FCND briefs 184. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Washington, D.C.
MCYS (2011). Social Statistics in Brief. The Ministry of Community Development, Youth
and Sports, retrieved from
http://app1.mcys.gov.sg/ResearchRoom/ResearchStatistics/NumberofPublicAssistance
Cases.aspx
MOE (2011). Financial Assistance Schemes. The Ministry of Education, retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/initiatives/financial-assistance/
MOE (2011). Financial Assistance Schemes for Schools. The Ministry of Education,
retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/parliamentary-replies/2011/10/financial-
assistance-scheme-for-schools.php.
23
MOE (2011). FY 2011 Committee of Supply Debate: 1st Reply by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister
for Education and Second Minister for Defence on Social Mobility — The Singapore
Story: Past, Present and Future. The Ministry of Education, retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2011/03/07/fy-2011-committee-of-supply-de-
1.php
MTI (2011). Household Expenditure Survey, 2007/08, ISSN 0217-9563, Department of
Statistics, Ministry of Trade & Industry, retrieved from
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/hhld/hes2007.pdf
Pinkerton, J. & Muhangi, D. (2009). Linking social welfare development with cash transfers
and education to promote child wellbeing - what we know and what we need to know.
Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 4(S1), 55-67.
Saunders, P., Naidoo, Y. & Griffiths, M. (2007). Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage:
Deprivation and Social Exclusion in Australia. Social Policy Research Centre.
Skoufias, E. (2005). PROGRESA and its impacts on the welfare of rural households in
Mexico. International Food Policy Research Institute Report No. 139. IFPRI,
Washington D.C.
The Straits Times (2011). About the Straits Times’ School Pocket Money Fund. The Straits
Times, retrieved from
http://www.straitstimes.com/spmf/School+Pocket+Money+Fund.html
24
Table 1. Socioeconomic demographics of parents and guardians (n=400)
Variable %
Variable %
Mean
(SD)
Ethnicity Chinese
Malay
Indian
Others
33.3
53.3
10.0
3.5
Gender Female
Male
81.8
18.3
Religion Buddhism
Christianity
Hinduism
Taoism
Islam
Other
18.5
5.5
6.3
5.5
59.3
5.0
Marital
status
Married
Remarried
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
Single (never
married)
65.8
4.8
3.0
20.5
5.8
0.3
Monthly
household
income in
S$
Below $500
$500 - $1,000
$1,001 - $1,400
$1,401 - $1,600
More than $1,601
12.8
33.1
29.8
18.1
12.3
Balance
of income
at the end
of month
in S$
More than -$301
-$1 - -$300
$0
$1 - $300
More than $301
50.6
17.3
23.8
7.5
1.1
Financial
assets in
S$
Less than $500
$501 - $1,000
$1,001 - $2,000
More than $2,001
84.4
6.5
3.8
5.3
Consumer
debts in
S$
Less than $1,000
$1,000 - $5,000
$5,001 - $10,000
More than $10,001
81.3
9.3
4.5
4.9
Education Primary school or less
Secondary school but
no graduation
Secondary school
graduation
ITE, Polytechnic, or
university
46.0
27.0
19.3
7.8
Home
ownership
Own
Rent
Staying with
friends and family
66.5
26.8
6.8
Health
status
Poor
Fair
Good
Very good
Excellent
13.5
30.5
46.3
8.3
1.5
Number
of adults
Number
of
children
2.3 (1.1)
2.8 (1.3)
25
Table 2. Socioeconomic demographics of children (n=400)
Variable %
Mean
(SD)
Variable %
Mean
(SD)
Age 13.9
(2.48)
Gender Female
Male
48.3
51.7
Race or
ethnicity
Chinese
Malay
Indian
Others
33.8
54.8
9.0
2.5
Health
status
Poor
Fair
Good
Very good
Excellent
Missing
1.3
10.3
46.0
26.0
9.0
7.5
Education
status
(n=366)
Primary 1-3
Primary 4-6
Secondary 1-2
Secondary 3-5
ITE, Polytechnic
4.1
28.4
26.8
32.2
8.5
Educational
goals (level
of education
child hopes
to achieve)
(n = 369)
Primary school
Secondary school
ITE or Vocational
Institute
Junior college
Polytechnic
University
Graduate school
1.6
3.5
10.3
4.6
38.4
38.1
3.2
Talk with
parents about
educational
goals
Almost always
Sometimes
Hardly ever
Almost never
25.5
44.5
13.5
9.0
Confidence in the educational
goal
6.75 (1.72)
26
Table 3. Perceived effectiveness of SPMF by parents or guardians
Mean
(SD)
1. Helped meet my child’s school-going financial needs 4.06 (.42)
2. Reduced economic hardship for my family. 4.04 (.54)
3. Improved family budgeting or financial practices for my family. 4.01 (.55)
4. Improved my child’s school attendance. 3.93 (.58)
5. Improved my ability of managing financially on our own. 3.89 (.54)
6. Had positive changes in my child’s education plans 3.87 (.59)
7. Improved my relationship with my child. 3.86 (.59)
8. Improved the nutrition of my child. 3.85 (.60)
9. Increased my child’s self-esteem 3.85 (.61)
10. Given my child more choice about how to spend money 3.83 (.64)
11. Improved my child’s academic performance. 3.80 (.64)
12. Increased my child’s participation in CCA 3.80 (.69)
13. Enhanced my control over my child 3.60 (.77)
Note: The item responses range from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
27
Table 4. Children’s perception toward SPMF
Mean (SD)
1. Made me feel less self-conscious about not having enough money 4.03 (.69)
2. Helped me save some money 4.01 (.68)
3. Helped to pay for school-related items (e.g., stationery, class fund,
etc.)
4.00 (.68)
4. Made it easier for me to go to or be in school 3.99 (.68)
5. Helped me attend my CCA(s) more regularly 3.97 (.66)
6. Made me want to attend school more regularly 3.96 (.69)
7. Helped me do better at school 3.92 (.76)
8. Made me want to work hard at school 3.90 (.85)
9. Helped me get along better with my parents 3.85 (.80)
10. Given me a sense of control over my money 3.82 (.71)
11. Increased my options about what to eat when I am hungry 3.79 (.77)
12. Helped me to be more active in class 3.79 (.81)
13. Helped me to attend my CCA(s) 3.66 (.90)
14. Helped my parents to save money 3.57 (.81)
28
Table 5. Correlation analyses
Perceptions toward SPMF Confidence in
educational goals
1. Made me want to attend school more regularly .152
(p=.010)
2. Helped me do better at school .156
(p=.008)
3. Given me a sense of control over my money .152
(p=.010)
4. Helped me save some money .178
(p=.002)
5. Helped me get along better with my parents .225
(p=.000)
6. Helped to pay for school-related items (e.g., stationery,
class fund, etc.)
7. Increased my options about what to eat when I am
hungry
8. Helped me be more careful about how I spend my money .162
(p=.006)
9. Helped me to be more active in class .129
(p=.029)
10. Helped me to attend my CCA(s)
11. Helped me attend my CCA(s) more regularly .216
(p=.000)
12. Made it easier for me to go to or be in school .233
(p=.000)
13. Helped my parents to save money .183
(p=.002)
14. Made me feel less self-conscious about not having
enough money
.208
(p=.000)
Note: Only significant correlation coefficients at the p-value of .05 are presented.
29
Table 6. Overall grade changes before and after SPMF participation (n = 134)
After SPMF
Overall grade Fail Pass Total
Before SPMF
Fail 22
(59.5)
15
(40.5)
37
(100.0)
Pass 15
(15.5)
82
(84.5)
97
(100.0)
Total 37
97
134
Note: Chi-Square =25.94; p<.001
30
Table 7. CCA participation changes before and after SPMF participation (n = 133)
After SPMF
CCA
Participation
No Yes Total
Before SPMF
No 20
(54.0)
17
(46.0)
37
(100.0)
Yes 8
(8.3)
88
(91.7)
96
(100.0)
Total 28
105
133
Note: Chi-Square = 33.59; p<.001