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

2. Social Protection Research Overview
 Takaful evaluations
oRegression discontinuity evaluations
oFirst round 2017 and second round 2022
oTargeting analysis (ongoing)
oHeterogeneity analysis (ongoing)
 Forsa evaluation (ongoing)
oBaseline in 2022
Supported by USAID Evaluating Impact and Building Capacity Project,
World Bank, and National Policies and Strategy OneCG Initiative

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
o 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
o Further explored in qualitative evaluation and 2022 round
o 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. 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

9. 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

10. 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
o 30% rejected Takaful applicants
 Randomized Control Trial:
o 160 Treatment sub-villages
o 163 Control sub-villages
o 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.)

11. Ongoing Work: Forsa evaluation
 Household survey in January-
February 2022
 Sample 24 eligible households per
village
oExpect 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

12. 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

13. 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:
oPolicy brief on Forsa employers survey
oAcademic journal article on Takaful medium-term impacts
oAcademic journal article on demographic heterogeneity in consumption
impacts