Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Andisha, N., Chiquito-Saban, O., Emmerich, E., Figueroa, A., Jiang, Y., Lee, J. H., Manning, D., Ortega-Sanchez, A., & Gawande, K. (2014.) Reducing child labour in Panama: An impact evaluation. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 6(2), 128-146.
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the impact of two components of the DESTINO program—CEC (a tutoring course) and EPA (an alternative primary school program)—on children’s participation in agricultural work in Panama. This summary focuses on the comparison between the EPA treatment group and the comparison group.
- The study used a nonexperimental comparison group design. Using post-intervention survey data, the authors compared the outcomes for children receiving the EPA program to children over 12, who had not received the CEC program and were not attending school.
- The study found that there were no significant relationships between participation in the EPA program and child work participation or hours worked.
- The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not ensure that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the EPA program; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
DESTINO’s EPA program
Features of the Intervention
The U.S. Department of Labor funded and Casa Esperanza implemented the DESTINO program in Panama between August 2004 and August 2008 with the goal of reducing child agricultural labor. One DESTINO component was the EPA program. The EPA program was an alternative school (located in seven centers) for children over 12 years of age with the goal of re-engaging out of school students to finish primary school; it operated five days a week, year-round. DESTINO determined the placement of EPA programs based on the number of child laborers (e.g., potential program beneficiaries).
Features of the Study
The study was a nonexperimental comparison group design. No baseline data were available so post-treatment outcomes were compared for the EPA treatment group and a comparison group across ten regions. Data were sourced from a survey of 185 households, representing 427 children, taken after the completion of the DESTINO program (including participants in both the CEC and EPA programs). The comparison group for the EPA program was children over 12 who had not received the CEC program and were not attending school. The EPA sample included 24 children in the treatment group and 94 children in the comparison group. The authors used regression models with controls for observable and unobservable characteristics to test the impact of the program.
Findings
Employment/Child labor
- The study found no significant relationship between participation in the EPA program and the probability of children participating in economic activities.
- The study found no significant relationship between participation in the EPA program and the hours spent in economic activity.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
Because no baseline data were available, the authors could not sufficiently account for preexisting differences between the groups before program participation. These preexisting differences between the groups—and not the EPA program—could explain the observed differences in outcomes.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not ensure that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the EPA program; other factors are likely to have contributed.