Cost-Effectiveness of a Savings-Led Economic Empowerment Intervention for AIDS-Affected Adolescents in Uganda: Implications for Scale-up in Low-Resource Communities.

Purpose: Nearly 12 million children and adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa have lost one or both parents to AIDS. Within sub-Saharan Africa, Uganda has been greatly impacted, with an estimated 1.2 million orphaned children, nearly half of which have experienced parental loss due to the epidemic. Cost-effective and scalable interventions are needed to improve developmental outcomes for these children, most of whom are growing up in poverty. This article examines the direct impacts and cost-effectiveness of a savings-led family economic empowerment intervention, Bridges to the Future, that employed varying matched savings incentives to encourage investment in Ugandan children orphaned by AIDS.

Methods: Using data from 48 primary schools in southwestern Uganda, we calculate per-person costs in each of the two treatment arms-Bridges (1:1 match savings) versus Bridges PLUS (1:2 match savings); estimate program effectiveness across outcomes of interest; and provide the ratios of per-person costs to their corresponding effectiveness.

Results: At the 24-month postintervention initiation, children in the two treatment arms showed better results in health, mental health, and education when compared to the usual care condition; however, no statistically significant differences were found between treatment arms with the exception of school attendance rates which were higher for those in Bridges PLUS. Owing to the minimal cost difference between the Bridges and Bridges PLUS arms, we did not find substantial cost-effectiveness differences across the two treatment arms.

Conclusion: After 24 months, an economic intervention that incorporated matched savings yielded positive results on critical development outcomes for adolescents orphaned by AIDS in Uganda. The 1:1 and 1:2 match rates did not demonstrate variable levels of cost-effectiveness at 24-month follow-up, suggesting that governments intending to incorporate savings-led interventions within their social protection frameworks may not need to select a higher match rate to see positive developmental outcomes in the short term. Further research is required to understand intervention impacts and cost-effectiveness after a longer follow-up period.