**Table 7.  Estimates of Impact Equations for SFD Potable Water Projects (In the Presence of Other Potable** **<u>Water Interventions) on the Headcount Poverty Rate</u>**

||Common-im|pact model|General imp|act model|
|---|---|---|---|---|
||Coefficient|p-value|Coefficient|p-value|
|Dependent variable: Headcount Poverty Rate (%)|||||
|**SFD piped water project in place (1=yes, 0=no)**|**-0.48**|**0.13**|-19.82|0.04|
|<br>Average value of durable goods|-0.65|0.00|-0.60|0.00|
|Children asproportion of household members|-3.71|0.20|-5.95|0.06|
|Adult males as proportion of household members|-1.36|0.68|-5.48|0.12|
|<br>Adult females as proportion of household members|-5.03|0.16|-6.95|0.07|
|<br>Proportion of households with access to sewerage(%)|-0.83|0.03|-0.73|0.07|
|Average household size|0.33|0.04|0.40|0.03|
|Female-headed households (% of households)|1.34|0.18|0.96|0.39|
|<br>Proportion of children who are working (%)|-5.56|0.00|-4.89|0.00|
|Illiteracy rate (%)|0.89|0.35|0.49|0.65|
|Prevailing economic activity in PSU is services (yes=1)|0.97|0.12|0.64|0.32|
|<br>PSU has one or more training programs(yes=1)|0.42|0.16|0.45|0.14|
|PSU has an illiteracy eradication program (yes=1)|-0.59|0.71|0.03|0.88|
|<br>2000: Employment rate (%)|0.13|0.01|0.02|0.01|
|<br>2000: Illiteracyrate(%)|-0.03|0.17|-0.03|0.18|
|2000: Headcount poverty rate (%)|0.05|0.00|0.06|0.00|
|2000: Per capita expenditure|0.001|0.00|0.001|0.02|
|2000: Per capita food expenditure|-0.004|0.02|-0.002|0.15|
|2000: Female-headed households (% of households)|0.05|0.08|0.01|0.78|
|2000: Access to piped water (% of households)|0.002†|0.62|-0.002†|0.64|
|<br>2000: Access to sanitation (% of households)|<br>0.002|0.65|<br>0.002|0.67|
|<br>Intercept|8.17|0.01|9.72|0.00|
|Interaction terms (of variables with presence of SFD piped|No||Yes||
|water project):|||||
|Adjusted R<sup>2</sup>|0.25||0.26||
|<br>Number of observations(PSUs)|1,267||1,267||

_Notes:_ Treatment effect for interactive equation, averaged over all observations: -2.21. † Coefficient shown here has been multiplied by 10<sup>6</sup> . _Source:_ Authors’ calculations based on HIECS and community survey 2004/2005.

**Table 8.  Estimates of Effects of SFD Potable Water Interventions (in the Presence of Other Potable Water Interventions)**

||Propensity <br>|Score Match<br>|ingModel<br>|Impact<br>|Model<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Regression|Nearest<br>Neighbor|Kernel<br>Matching|Common<br>Impact|General<br>Impact|
|**Outputs**||||||
|Households with access to piped water (%)|-0.02|-0.12|-0.02|-0.02|-0.03|
|Average household spendingonpotable water|-1.02**|-1.92*|-1.39**|-1.21*|-1.57|
|**Outcomes (short-term)**||||||
|Under-5 mortality rate (per thousand)|-5.94|4.85|-4.07|-5.55|-35.19|
|Prevalence of diarrhea (%)|2.63**|2.93**|2.37**|2.49**|3.43|
|Prevalence of malaria (%)|0.04*|-0.00|0.04|0.04|0.11|
|Prevalence of renal disease (%)|0.42**|0.46**|0.46**|0.54**|0.15|
|Prevalence of bilharzia (schistosomiasis) (%)|0.12*|0.16|0.01|0.14*|-0.16|
|Per capita expenditure on health care|-12.13**|-17.78*|-12.71**|-6.34|22.44|
|**Impact (long-run)**||||||
|Povertyrate(%)|-0.81**|-0.76|-0.39|-0.48|-2.21|

_Notes:_ * denotes significant at 10% level, ** denotes significant at 5% level. Significance levels for General Impact Model are not shown here. _Source:_ Authors’ calculations based on HIECS and community survey 2004/2005.

_Impact Evaluation: Egyptian Social Fund for Development_ _Version of June 29, 2009_ _Page 17 of 36_