This presentation is part of the programme of the International Seminar "Social Protection, Entrepreneurship and Labour Market Activation: Evidence for Better Policies", organized by the International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG/UNDP) together with Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the Colombian Think Tank Fedesarrollo held on September 10-11 at the Ipea Auditorium in Brasilia.

1. Conditional Cash Transfers and
Rural Development in Latin America
Country Study: El Salvador
Margarita Bene ke de Sanfeliú,
Amy Angel and Mauricio Shi

2. Introduction to the regional project
• This research will try to understand how households react to
the intervention of both Conditidonal Cash Transfers (CCT)
and Rural Development Projects (RD), like those promoted by
IFAD, compared with being exposed to only one of these
interventions.
• We aim to identify synergies and complementarities between
both types of interventions.
• If synergies are identified, development projects could be
more effective in reducing poverty, and CCT programs could
find better 'graduation strategies'.

3. Project objectives
• To describe and understand the mechanisms (at the household
and community levels) through which there exist or could exist
synergistic effects between rural development and CCT
programs.
• To inform policy makers at the national level and international
organizations that provide financing for CCTs and rural
development projects, about the potential for synergistic effects
between both types of interventions, and to suggest alternative
program designs to enhance and exploit these effects.
• To provide feedback and build capacity within IFAD's Country
Program Managers and country teams, to take greater
advantage of potential synergistic effects between IFAD projects
and CCT programs.

4. Project strategy
• COMPONENTS
– Technical component: evaluate the effect of having access to
CCT and RD, in terms of use of economic assets, poverty
reduction, gender effects and financial inclusion.
– Policy advocacy component : generate lessons and influence
policy decisions so that key aspects such as graduation from
CCTs or participation in RD projects take advantage of
multiplier effects that can enhance impact in reducing poverty
and improve resilience of poor rural women and men.
• COUNTRIES
– Group 1: Colombia, Peru, El Salvador: primary data collected
– Group 2: Mexico, Brazil and Chile: analytical studies with
secondary data, to provide lessons for group 1.
• SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

5. Project hypothesis
• Households that are beneficiaries of CCT programs and are
involved in IFAD-RD projects compared with families that just
receive one type of intervention (CCT or IFAD-RD) and with
families that do not receive any kind of intervention
– Will be more successful  the income level of the families
or in a given measure of poverty
– Will have greater access to the formal financial markets
 financial inclusion indicators.
– Women will be more empowered  role in household
decisions
– Will have better opportunities to allocate and enhance
economic assets  productivity of production systems
within the household.

6. Methodology
• Literature review, sistematization of other impact evaluations
and surveys
• Document programs (CCT and DR)
• Mixed methods
– Quantitative: Household survey. One round (trying to get
͞before͟ info from some other source).
– Qualitative: focus groups and in depth interviews with
households, project administrator, and communities
• Dialogue with Policy makers, program administrators,
politicians, other groups interested in RD

7. CCT in El Salvador:
Comunidades Solidarias Rurales (CSR)
• Conditional cash transfers: Education bonus (up to 6th grade), health
bonus (0-5 yrs old), combination: $15 per month if only one, $20 per
month if both.
• Only one bonus per family (possible more than 1 per household).
Current average: $15.18
• The program is in 100 municipalities (of 262): rolling entry by level of
poverty.
• Important: A family could join the program only they met qualifying
ĐharaĐteristiĐs at the ŵoŵeŶt of the ͞ĐeŶsus͟
• Currently 75,385 beneficiaries (down from 101,000): 6% of total
households, 14% poor population. Budget: 0.06% of GDP.
• The prograŵ iŶǀolǀes: ͞capacitaciones͟ aŶd opportuŶities to soĐialize
• Impacts: attracting older children that were out of the system, early
entry to school; frequent health check-ups; nutrition protected in food
shock episode.

8. IFAD and MAG RD Programs
PAF: Family Agricultural Plan
• Value Chains (VC):
– Small and medium commercial farmers
– Field schools
– Assistance to joint purchases of inputs and marketing of
products
– Transfer of production technology and credit (in one program)
– 35% most be women and younger men
• Food Security (FS)
– Subsistence farmer families
– Field schools for traditional crop improvement and crop
diversification, natural resource management and home
health.
– Uses demonstration families who transfer knowledge and
technology to secondary families through demonstration
plots and direct training
– Inputs and time saving equipment (stoves and water
containers)
– 35% most be women

9. Comparison groups
RD Projects
RD Projects
Beneficiaries Others
CCT
CCT A B
No CCT C D
Possible
͞graduation͟
strategy
Beneficiaries Others
A B
Exited AC BD
Never C D
No CCT

10. Sample frame
• Sample frame constructed combin ing several sources of info:
– Ministry of Agriculture: 5 listings (FS and VC 2010-2013)
– FISDL: CSR Census (info for ALL households in 100 municipalities)
and complete CCT beneficiaries data base
We were able to match 19,342 individuals in 14,184 households
• From the complete sample frame, we eliminated households:
– With more than one CCT participant (5%), so remaining households
would have similar transfer values
– Exited CCT or entered a RD program before 2012
– Without at least one child two years below or above the limit for
CCT at the time of selection into the program (So treatment and
ĐoŶtrol households ǁould ďe ͞alŵost͟ eligiďle to reĐeiǀe CCTͿ
– Households in municipalities without RD programs (so all remaining
could potentially participate).

11. • Each observation in the sample frame was classified into one of
the groups: A,B,C,D, AC, BD
– Comparisons among groups with RD beneficiaries can be
done directly  A, C and AC
– Comparisons involving groups with and without RD
beneficiaries cannot be done directly (possible selection bias):
 B, D and BD
• Beneficiaries of FS and VC programs appear to be different in
variables in Proxy means test used by CSR (according to
descriptive statistics using origiŶal ͞ĐeŶsus͟ dataͿ .
• We used discriminant analysis to classify non-RD beneficiaries
into one of the B, D and BD (separating by FS and VC)
Using variables in
CCT Proxy means
test
Sample frame… ;cont)

12. Sample selection (cont…Ϳ
• To assign each observation to a treatment a control group for
eaĐh ͞strategLJ͟ aŶd tLJpe ;F“ or VCͿ
- We used Propensity Score Matching (PSM) for each pair
of treatment and control. We left only those observations
in the area of common support
- We only found comparison-pairs that were sufficiently
similar for the following strategies:
6,176 households in 54 municipios
No. Treatment Comparison FS VC
1 A (CCT+RD) C (RD) YES YES
2 A (CCT+RD) B (CCT) NO NO
3 A (CCT+RD) D (None) NO NO
4 C (RD) D (None) NO NO
5 B (CCT) D (None) NO NO
6 A (CCT+RD) AC (CT + RD) YES NO
7 AC (CT + RD) BD (CT) YES NO
8 AC (CT + RD) C (RD) YES NO

13. Sample design
Available observations
FS VC
A CCT + RD 918 287 1,205
C RD 325 185 510
AC CCT + RD 643 643
BC CCT 3,818 3,818
Total 5,704 472 6,176
Randomly
selected from
all available in
each group
RD type
Group Total
RD type
FS VC
Group
Total
A CCT + RD 250 287 537
C RD 250 185 435
AC CCT + RD 250 250
BC CCT 250 250
Total 1,000 472 1,472

14. Similar to:
Actual Intersection
Geographical location of
final sample
of CCT and RD VC and FS
FS only
Field work:
27 Jan- 1 april
FS VC
A CCT + RD 241 239 480
C RD 213 152 365
AC CCT + RD 230 230
BC CCT 226 226
910 391 1,301
Group
RD type
Total
Total
Final sample

15. Survey Questionnaire Modules
A. Identification
B. Household composition (HC)
C. Education (HC)
D. Health (HC)
E. Ocupation and labor market (W)
e.1 Ocuations details (I) (D)
e.2 Job search
F. Information about land (PC)
G. Agricultural production
g.1 Crops (D)
g.2 Animales (D)
g.3 Equipamiento (CF)
H. Associations and social capital
h.1 Participation in associations
h2. Community relationship
I. Rural Development proyects
i.1 Food security
i.2 Value chains
J. Housing conditions and assets (PC)
K. Remittances and other income (I) (D)
L. Food security (Proxy, I)
M. Expectations, aspirations and
empowement
m.1 General perceived self-efficacy
m.2 Mood and self-esteem
m.3 Locus of control
m.4 Aspirations
m.5 Decision making (W)
N. Delinquency and other security issues
O. Financial services(FI)
m.1 Debts
m.2 Savings
P. Shocks
CH: Human capital
PC: Physical captal
D: Economic Diversification
I: Income
FI: Financial inclusion
W: Rol of women

16. Qualitative strategy
• Stage 1. Before survey (to inform data collection)
– Focus groups with:
• CSR regional staff
• IFAD program coordinators
• Field staff RD programs
– Interviews with CSR and RD administrators
• Stage 2. After survey (to explain and further explore findings
and possible RD program modifications)
– Feedback from survey fieldwork personnel
– Focus groups and semi-structured interviews (perceptions
of 106 individuals selected from survey sample)
• A, C, AC and BD, to explore the ͞why͟ of results)
– Interviews with community leaders
– Interviews with CSR and RD staff

17. Identification strategy
From survey results we noted:
- From the original CSR census (2005 to 2009) to the survey in
2014, there was some household restructuring (some
ŵeŵďers left CCT households aŶd ͞took͟ transfers with
them, or new members ͞ďrought͟ transfers to non-CCT
households).
- Some households that were identified as users of RD
programs in the official listings, responded that they were
not actual beneficiaries
Identification strategy: Intent to Treat Effect, using
single difference with PSM (variables in original census)

18. Additional research questions:
In El Salvador, what generates synergy between RD and CCT
programs, ͞Đash͟ or ͞something else͟? Is adding RD a good
͞graduation strategy͟?
Given that:
 The $ transferred is very small (avg. $15.18 per month, currently
payable $60 every 4 months); amount is the same since 2005
 Previous evaluations of CSR showed that women´s empowerment
(mainly in the domestic domainͿ iŶĐreased due to ͞capacitaciones͟
and opportunities for social interaction provided by the program
We test the (additional) hypothesis that the $ amount is NOT what
generates the synergy:
Results [A (CCT + RD)] = Results [AC (CCT + RD)]
If this is the Đase, theŶ addiŶg RD after ͞edžitiŶg͟ CCT prograŵ ǁould ďe
a good ͞graduatioŶ strategLJ͟
Results [AC (CCT + RD)] > Results [BD (CCT)]

19. In El “alvador, ͞something else͟ generates synergy
between RD and CCT programs… and adding RD is a
good ͞graduation strategy͟ …
• We did not find a significant d ifference in outcomes for
those still receiving CCT and those who exited the program
Group Differences
A (TMC+DR) AC (TMC+DR) BD (TMC) A vs AC
Característica
AC vs BD
Empowerment
Empowerment Index 66.3% 68.4% 64.8% 3.6% **
Domain: Production 71.6% 77.2% 66.6% 10.6% ***
Domain: Resources 54.8% 56.8% 50.6% 6.2% **
Domain: Income 87.3% 88.9% 80.3% 8.6% ***
Financial Inclusion:
Accounts or formal credit formal inst. 22.4% 21.7% 15.0% 6.7% **
Income proxy:
Asset index (productive or household) 7.70 8.47 7 .63 0 .84 ***
Reduced assets because of food insecurity 22.8% 22.6% 28.3% -5.7% *
N 241 230 226
• Adding RD produĐes ͞gains͟…. even in empowerment

20. … especially for women
Empowerment
increased, even
iŶ ŶoŶ ͞domestic͟
domains
Group Differences
A (TMC+DR) AC (TMC+DR) BD (TMC) A vs AC
WOMEN
Selected variables
AC vs BD
Empowerment
Empowerment Index 58.5% 62.4% 59.0% 3.4% *
Domain: Production 50.0% 66.3% 53.9% 12.5% **
Domain: Resources 41.4% 48.9% 42.7% 6.2% *
Domain: Income 82.3% 87.5% 77.1% 10.4% **
Financial Inclusion:
Accounts or formal credit formal inst. 20.2% 16.7% 14.1%
Income proxy:
Asset index (productive or household) 7.69 8.14 7.39 0.75 **
Reduced assets because of food insecurity 22.6% 20.0% 32.4% -12.4% **
N 124 120 142
MEN
Empowerment
Empowerment Index 74.6% 74.8% 74.6%
Domain: Production 94.4% 92.3% 88.0%
Domain: Resources 68.9% 65.5% 63.9%
Domain: Income 92.7% 90.5% 85.7%
Financial Inclusion:
Accounts or formal credit formal inst. 24.8% 27.3% 16.7% 10.6% *
Income proxy:
Asset index (productive or household) 7.71 8.83 8.06 0.77 **
Reduced assets because of food insecurity 23.1% 25.5% 21.4%
N 117 110 84
Financial
inclusion
increased

21. Results
• We could identify some positive synergies (Intent to Treat
Effects) in all domains evaluated (income, empowerment,
financial inclusion)
• There is eǀideŶĐe that the ͞other͟ aĐtiǀities of the CCT
prograŵ ;͞capacitaciones͟ aŶd opportuŶities of soĐial
interaction) combined with RD, produce gains, especially for
women.
• Results in terms of empowerment in areas other than
͞doŵestiĐ͟, are larger for ǁoŵeŶ.
• There is evidence that RD programs could be good
͞graduatioŶ strategies͟ for CCT ďeŶefiĐiaries
• Preliminary qualitative results suggest that there is
substantial potential for improving results  we should be
able to suggest modification to program design and
implementation, including further inter-agency coordination

22. Conditional Cash Transfers and
Rural Development in Latin America
Country Study: El Salvador
Margarita Bene ke de Sanfeliú,
Amy Angel and Mauricio Shi