effect of growth on poverty;education and health;monitoring and evaluation system;Orphans and Vulnerable Children;gender gap in education;social point of view;skilled ...  See More + labor in production;human capital;per capita expenditure;labor market participation;per capita consumption;impact on poverty;school enrollment rate;level of consumption;distribution of wealth;cash transfer program;human capital formation;propensity score matching;social assistance program;preventive health care;higher consumption levels;increase in prices;impact on fertility;return to investment;supply of service;delivery of education;social protection program;years of schooling;effect on consumption;reduction in poverty;social protection services;consumption per capita;cumulative distribution function;demand for service;extremely poor household;disparities in access;preventive health services;equality of opportunity;health care use;conditional cash transfer;number of beneficiaries;return on investment;parent and children;rates of return;square poverty gap;official exchange rate;human capital development;poverty reduction program;welfare of children;child nutritional status;basic education development;education sector reform;gross domestic product;health and nutrition;impact of transfer;social protection system;political economy considerations;millennium development goal;degree of transparency;extremely poor people;asian financial crisis;prima facie evidence;achievement of outcome;terms of education;labor force participation;redistribution of resource;human capital accumulation;transfer amount;social policy;education service;program beneficiary;Education Services;standard error;social policies;private investment;program effect;pilot program;social worker;household level;labor supply;incentive effect;Learning and Innovation Credit;recipient household;positive impact;conceptual framework;opportunity cost;large transfer;fiscal studies;estimate impact;household consumption;standard deviation;cross-sectional regression;Early childhood;cognitive development;treatment group;program administrator;children of ages;beneficiary household;Child Health;behavioral change;public good;social indicator;poor infrastructure;adequate supply;public domain;extreme poverty;transfer size;means testing;managing risk;Public Goods;good performance;empirical research;public program;institutional foundation;public policy;average performance;old children;school support;Social Welfare;household behavior;basic model;emotional development;relative weight;poverty policy;high enrollment;education outcome;eligible beneficiary;needy family;cut-off point;poverty criterion;temporary assistance;welfare program;program eligibility;income threshold;young child;advocacy campaign;population group;household characteristic;income effect;marginal return;health facility;age range;negative terms;health outcome;Transient Poverty;basic benefit;performance bonus;incentive scheme;horizontal equity;target system;headcount index;agency problem;efficiency cost;gender difference;eligibility criterion;international donor;cash grant;consumption poverty;expected return;capita transfer;explanatory variable;indicator function;non-governmental organization;political acceptability;public resource;poor child;targeted transfer;gender disparity;children's health;positive externality;health investment;middle class;imperfect information;social contract;household decision;child education;household survey;female education;school day;household investment;child schooling;reducing inequality;unequal country;vicious cycle;empirical evidence;targeted subsidy;health information;employment program;social pension;unconditional transfers;targeted program;creative development;evaluation culture;experimental method;school condition;political process;positive behavior;inequality level;federal program;early success;market failure;target social;health condition;transfer cash;Perinatal Care;square roots;adverse shock;education age;fixed effect  See Less -