Sikandra Kurdi's slides (BEP launch)

1. Dr. Sikandra Kurdi
Research Fellow, IFPRI
Findings from Impact
Evaluations of Social
Protection Programs
‫لبرامج‬ ‫األثر‬ ‫تقييمات‬ ‫نتائج‬
‫االجتماعية‬ ‫الحماية‬
‫د‬
.
‫كردي‬ ‫سيكاندرا‬
‫الغذائية‬ ‫السياسات‬ ‫لبحوث‬ ‫الدولي‬ ‫المعهد‬ ، ‫باحث‬ ‫زميل‬

2. IFPRI Social Protection
Evaluation Work with the
Ministry of Social Solidarity
Sikandra Kurdi
International Food Policy Research Institute
May 7, 2023

3. Takaful Impact Evaluations
• Regression Discontinuity measures
the impact even without a baseline
or a control group
• Ideal for rigorous evaluation of large
national program without dedicated
randomized pilot
• Two rounds in 2017 and 2022
• Disadvantage that measures “local
average treatment effect”: the
impact on hhs near the threshold
• Supplemented by qualitative
evaluation in 2018 and
heterogeneity analysis (on-going)

4. Validation of Regression Discontinuity
Methodology
2017 Round 2022 Round
Sample of 5326 households
• Applied for Takaful 2015- June 2017
• PMT score between 3900 and 5100
Second round sample of 6475 households
Applied for Takaful in May 2016 – Dec. 2016
•PMT score between 4437 and 4563
New set of households and narrower regression
discontinuity window in order to maximize
statistical power

5. 2017 Survey Results
70
13
101
0 500 1000 1500
Meat and Poultry
Fruits
Total Food
Household Spending per Month (EGP)
 Total consumption increased by 8.4%; food spending increased by 8.9%
 Increased spending on fruits and poultry
 Increased spending on school costs
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Egypt
(Takaful)
Brazil Columbia Honduras Mexico
Impact
on
Consumption
(%
increase)
123
211
0 500 1000
Household with primary school age
children
Household with secondary school age
children
Household Spending per Year (EGP)
Average Spending Takaful Impact

6. 2017 Survey Results
• No impact on school attendance or healthcare attendance as conditionalities not yet
• Negative impact on women’s reported decision-making
• Further explored in qualitative evaluation and 2022 round
• Suggests this was a short-term result concentrated in women with less education and possibly related to
decreased in employment for women
• Targeting is good overall, but urban poor less likely to be included than rural poor and there was a
lack of understanding of program conditions
Urban Households in Poorest 40% Rural Households in Poorest 40%
Heard of Takaful 78% 86%
Applied to Takaful 37% 50%
Takaful Beneficiary 9% 18%
Share of Applicants Accepted 18% 31%

7. Continue to fund the program and expand coverage
Improve targeting through better outreach particularly in urban areas and
updating PMT formula
Improve communication regarding program design on conditionality and
program length and recertification
Work towards a comprehensive social protection strategy
Increase transparency and communication regarding status of applicants
Explore additional measures to promote women’s decision-making as
giving transfers alone does not change women’s role in the household
Continue to survey and evaluate the program
2017 Policy Recommendations

8. 2022 Survey
• After 5 years, financial impacts of cash have shifted from
consumption to investment and debt repayment
• Reduction in debt by 4000 EGP
• Increase in ownership of drip irrigation, plows, tractors, and livestock
• Significant impacts on school enrollment:
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Primary
Preparatory
Secondary
Takaful impacts on school enrollment (percent
enrollment)
Non-Takaful Enrollment Estimated Impact

9. Ongoing Work: Heterogeneity Analysis
• Use administrative data to measure changes in asset ownership
between original registration and recertification
• Test whether program impacts are stronger for poor households:
𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒1 − 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒0 = 𝛼𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒0 + 𝛽𝑍

10. Ongoing Work: Demographic Targeting
Analysis
• In 2017 survey results, impacts on consumption are higher for
households with older heads
• ELMPS panel data analysis shows households accumulate assets as
they age so they have high PMT score relative to their consumption
• => For given PMT score, older householders are poorer
• Policy recommendation supports change already made by Takaful to
have separate cut-offs by household head age

11. Ongoing Work: Forsa evaluation
 New economic inclusion program to graduate beneficiaries of Takaful & Karama to
economic self-reliance
 Two modalities: asset transfer and wage employment
 Pilot program with 50,000 participants in 8 governorates
o 70 % current Takaful beneficiaries
• 30% rejected Takaful applicants
• Randomized Control Trial:
• 160 Treatment sub-villages
• 163 Control sub-villages
• Goals: to measure impacts of Forsa on income and consumption for different types
of households (beneficiaries vs. rejected applicants; female vs. male participants;
high-skilled vs. low-skilled, etc.)

12. Ongoing Work: Forsa evaluation
• Household survey in January-February
2022
• Sample 24 eligible households per
village
• Expect most but not all eligible
households in treatment villages to end
up participating in Forsa
• 83% of sampled households reported
willingness to enroll in Forsa
• Of which 77% preferred self-
employment track
Current Takaful
beneficiaries
HH types
Rejected Takaful
applicants
Treatment Control

13. Ongoing Work : Forsa evaluation
• Baseline survey in data provides a detailed description of work skills,
current employment, and time use in targeted households which has
been shared as an input to program design decisions
• Midline telephone survey tentatively planned for late 2023 to
measure program uptake and impacts on employment and household
production

14. Publications
• 4 Policy briefs
• Full-reports on Takaful first round, Takaful second round, and Forsa
baseline
• Academic journal article accepted at Economic Development and
Cultural Change on impacts of Takaful on women’s decision-making
• In-progress:
• Policy brief on Forsa employers survey
• Academic journal article on Takaful medium-term impacts
• Academic journal article on demographic heterogeneity in consumption
impacts