Transfer programs have been shown to reduce intimate partner violence (IPV), but little evidence exists on how activities linked to transfers affect IPV or what happens when programs end. We assess postprogram impacts on IPV of randomly assigning women in Bangladesh to receive cash or food, with or without nutrition behavior change communication (BCC). Six to 10 months postprogram, IPV did not differ between women receiving transfers and a control group; however, women receiving transfers with BCC experienced 26 percent less physical violence. Evidence on mechanisms suggests sustained effects of BCC on women’s threat points, men’s social costs of violence, and household well-being.

Transfer programs have been shown to reduce intimate partner violence (IPV), but little evidence exists on how activities linked to transfers affect IPV or what happens when programs end. We assess postprogram impacts on IPV of randomly assigning women in Bangladesh to receive cash or food, with or without nutrition behavior change communication (BCC). Six to 10 months postprogram, IPV did not differ between women receiving transfers and a control group; however, women receiving transfers with BCC experienced 26 percent less physical violence. Evidence on mechanisms suggests sustained effects of BCC on women’s threat points, men’s social costs of violence, and household well-being.

Little is known about whether reductions in intimate partner violence (IPV) from cash transfer programs persist over the longer term. Using a randomized controlled trial design, we show that a program providing poor women in rural Bangladesh with cash or food transfers, alongside nutrition behavior change communication (BCC), led to sustained reductions in IPV 4 years after the program ended. Transfers alone showed no sustained impacts on IPV. Evidence suggests cash and BCC led to more sustained impacts on IPV than food and BCC – through persistent increases in women’s bargaining power, men’s costs of perpetrating violence, and poverty-related emotional well-being.

Cash transfers are a widely used form of social protection, providing effective and efficient ways to reduce poverty and support well-being. Evidence suggests that cash transfers can reduce intimate partner violence (IPV) across a wide range of programs and contexts, yet there is little guidance for design or implementation components in cash transfer programs that would maximize these reductions. Based on research into pathways of impact between cash transfers and IPV, this issue brief offers recommendations on cash transfer programming to increase gender-sensitivity and responsiveness to IPV prevention.

The importance of children’s nutritional status for subsequent human capital formation, the limited evidence of the effectiveness of social protection interventions on child nutrition, and the absence of knowledge on the intra-household impacts of cash and food transfers or how they are shaped by complementary programming motivate this paper. We implemented two, linked randomized control trials in rural Bangladesh, with treatment arms including cash transfers, a food ration, or a mixed food and cash transfer, as well as treatments where cash and nutrition behavior change communication (BCC) or where food and nutrition BCC were provided. Only cash plus nutrition BCC had a significant impact on nutritional status, but its effect on height-forage z scores (HAZ) was large, 0.25SD. We explore the mechanisms underlying this impact. Improved diets – including increased intake of animal source foods – along with reductions in illness in the cash plus BCC treatment arm are consistent with the improvement we observe in children’s HAZ.

Over the last five years, there has been increasing interest from global stakeholders in the relationship between cash transfers and gender-based violence, and in particular, intimate partner violence (IPV). Interest has grown both within the development and humanitarian spaces, although empirical research is mainly concentrated in the former. A mixed-method review paper published in 2018 found that, across 22 quantitative or qualitative studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the majority (73%) showed that cash decreased IPV; however, two studies showed mixed effects, and several others showed heterogenous impacts (Buller et al. 2018). A more recent meta-analysis of 14 experimental and quasiexperimental cash transfer studies found average decreases in physical/sexual IPV (4 percentage points (pp)), emotional IPV (2 pp) and controlling behaviors (4 pp) (Baranov et al. 2021). A feature of this literature is the high representation of evaluations from Latin America, primarily government conditional cash transfer programs. In addition, programming was generally focused on poverty-related objectives, and none of the programming was explicitly designed to affect IPV or violence outcomes more broadly.