evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Berhane Hewan — Conditional Asset Transfer to Delay Child Marriage

Ethiopia · Bahir Dar · See the Ethiopia profile

Evidence: Quasi-experimental Top 26% 85/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Two-year pilot in Amhara, Ethiopia (2004–2006) combining a conditional goat transfer for unmarried girls in school, safe-space mentoring and SRH education. Girls 10–14 were 10× less likely to have been married (OR 0.1) and 3× more likely to be in school (OR 3.0) at endline.

0.1 OR
Odds ratio, ever married (girls 10-14)
3.0 OR
Odds ratio, school enrolment (girls 10-14)
2.4 OR
Odds ratio, marriage likelihood (girls 15-19)
Berhane Hewan — Conditional Asset Transfer to Delay Child Marriage

Details

Maturity
Pilot
Promoter
Population Council
Period
2004–2006
Keywords
social protection, adolescent girls, education, child marriage prevention

Context

Berhane Hewan ('Light for Eve') was a two-year (2004-2006) community-based pilot in Mosebo village, Amhara Region, Ethiopia, run by the Population Council with the Amhara Regional Bureau of Youth and Sport, combining a conditional goat transfer for unmarried girls who stayed in school, weekly safe-space mentoring, and community awareness sessions on child marriage.

Results

Erulkar & Muthengi (2009) compared 462 intervention girls with 464 controls at endline: girls aged 10-14 in the programme site were ten times less likely to have ever married (OR 0.1, p<0.001) and three times more likely to be enrolled in school (OR 3.0, p<0.001), with significant improvement in contraceptive knowledge and use (OR 2.9).

Conclusions

Among girls aged 15-19, programme exposure was associated with elevated marriage likelihood at endline (OR 2.4), suggesting a 'catching-up' effect as some families accelerated marriages before the intervention ended -- highlighting the need for sustained, community-wide programming beyond time-limited cohorts. Berhane Hewan became a widely cited model that directly informed BRAC's ELA programme, later evaluated by RCT in Uganda.

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Commonly funded by

Philanthropic / foundation funding

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful