• A conditional cash transfer programme, In Care of the Poor (COPE), launched by the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) which provides cash transfers to 22,000 extremely poor and vulnerable households on the condition that adult members attend training sessions, keep their children in school, and utilise health services.
• A conditional cash transfer for girls’ education in Kano (12,000 girls) and Katsina (7,000 girls) states. If early age of pregnancy is found to be a key contributor to infant stunting then this programme is a good candidate if it can delay age at first birth.
• A pilot along the lines of the Productive Safety Net Programme (PNSP) in Ethiopia which combines public works programmes, income transfers and food security measures and support (Gilligan et. al. 2009).

COPE (In Care of Nigeria’s Poor)

COPE is a Nigerian CCT which started in 2007 as a pilot in 12 states and became compulsory across all states in the second phase, and is now in its third phase with state governments required to match funding. The objective is to break the intergenerational transfer of poverty and reduce the vulnerability of the poor to existing socio-economic risks, and to improve the capacity to contribute to economic development. The programme‘s design draws on the Latin American model. Beneficiary households receive a monthly Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) for one year and then a lump sum Poverty Reduction Accelerator Investment (PRAI). The BIG ranges from $10 to $33, depending on the number of children in the household; a further $50 per month is withheld as compulsory savings, which is provided as the PRAI (up to $560) to the head of the household. Entrepreneurship and life skills training are provided to beneficiaries to maximize the PRAI. Payments are based on households meeting two key conditions: enrolment and retention of children of basic school age in basic education (Primary 1 to junior secondary education), where a child must maintain at least 80% school attendance, and participation in all free health care programmes. 

Targeting is guided by national policy and initially included a combination of geographical, community-based and household targeting (NAPEP, 2007), and is intended for households with children of primary school age with the characteristics of headed by poor females, aged, physically challenged, VVF patients and HIV and AIDS patients. A community development committee (CDC) coordinates the identification of beneficiaries. A total of 12 states have now committed funding, which include Katsina and Kebbi (NW).

But programme coverage is very small. NAPEP‘s own estimates suggest that COPE has now reached approximately 22,000 households. Dijkstra (2011) found that 18,750 households have been trained by COPE. This results in coverage of less than 0.001% of the poor. Rollout has been uneven and currently, even with matched funding, resources to reach a wider population are constrained. For instance, in Jigawa, COPE reaches 50 households in 17 LGAs, covering 850 households in total, with a proposal to cover 2,800 households in all 27 LGAs (Budget and Economic Planning Directorate). The population of Jigawa is over 4 million and the poverty rate is 90%. In Adamawa, 50 households in 10 LGAs (out of 21) have been targeted, reaching 500 households in total so far.

COPE was designed at the national level by NAPEP, OSSAP-MDGs and state representatives with support from the World Bank. At the state level, COPE is implemented mainly by NAPEP in collaboration with the Small and Medium Scale Enterprise Development Agency (SMEDAN) and the National Directorate of Employment (NDE). In Phase 1, it cost N1 billion (NAPEP, 2007), with N2.4 million allocated to each of the 12 states and the FCT.25 In Phase 2, funding of N2.3 million was provided to cover the remaining 24 states and FCT. In 2010, state governments would take control of the CCT through the Conditional Grants Scheme (CGS) in order to improve sustainability: the CGS has a number of thematic areas, including education, health, water and cash transfers, and its criteria for approval for CCTs include that there must be an implementing agency and the state must have a supply side in place (tied to school enrolment, primary health care or schools) (according to a key informant at OSSAP-MDGs).

Other CCT programmes

Three other CCT programmes are currently being implemented in Nigeria – in Kano, Bauchi and Katsina – to reduce girls’ dropout as a result of early marriage, specifically in the transition period from primary to secondary school. The pilots are running for three years, from 2011 to 2014. The cash transfers are transferred to beneficiaries on a two months basis. In Kano, two benefit levels are being tested: N5, 000 (approximately $32) and N2, 500 (approximately $16). Receipt of the income transfer is conditional on girls‘ 80% school attendance. In Katsina, the design also focuses on creating linkages with other programmes and institutions, including a referrals‘ component, where beneficiaries are referred to a specialized institution when necessary.

In Kano, there are around 12,000 beneficiaries, but the aim is to extend the programme to all rural girls in the eligible catchment areas. The pilot covers one cohort moving through the schooling cycle, through Primary 5-6 and Junior Secondary 1 of selected schools. Targeting is determined primarily by the availability of schools supported by the Education Sector Support Programme in Nigeria (ESSPIN), so that the supply side is guaranteed. In rural areas, the programme management unit is selecting schools in poor areas; in urban areas, however, schools are selected using proxy means testing. In Katsina, stakeholders OSA (Office of the Special Advisor), UNICEF and the SUBEB selected nine LGAs for the pilot, with 7,000 households/9,000 girls as beneficiaries. As in Kano, there is the expectation, based on impact evaluation results that the cash transfer will be scaled up to all 36 LGAs.

Overall these CCTs appear to not have explicit nutritional goals and there have been no assessments or evaluations. They may however, have the potential to improve the nutritional status of children by improving household incomes, promoting use of free health care programmes, increasing girls’ education, and delaying the age of marriage and first pregnancy.