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; swkhck@nus.edu.sg 2 Assistant Professor, McGill University School of Social Work 2506 University Street, Suite 300, Montreal,

Quebec H3A 2A7; david.rothwell@mcgill.ca, http://www.mcgill.ca/socialwork/faculty/rothwell 3 Assistant Director, National Council of Social Service, Singapore; eunice_lee@ncss.gov.sg

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

chkhan@skku.edu

David W. Rothwell, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

School of Social Work

McGill University, Canada

David.rothwell@mcgill.ca

Eunice Lin

Assistant Director

National Council of Social Service, Singapore

eunice_lin@ncss.gov.sg

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