<mark>control group reporting receipt of ESSN transfers, which is already 21% at the 6-month follow-up, increasing to 42% by the 18-month follow-up. The treatment effect on eligibility is 72 percentage points (pp) at the 6- month follow-up, declining to 37 pp by the 18-month follow-up (column (4)). Columns (1)-(3) and (5)-(7) show lower- and upper-bounds estimates on this difference, respectively: 18 months after baseline, the treatment effect on self-reported receipt of cash transfers from ESSN is between 28 and 48 pp. The bottom panel in</mark> Table <mark>5 shows that the treatment effect on the amount of ESSN transfer received last month was less than TRY300 by the 18-month follow-up, as opposed to the approximately TRY720 that would be expected under full compliance with initial eligibility status.</mark>

**Table 5: Estimation results for eligibility of receiving the cash transfers**

||||**Lower bounds**||**Unadjusted**||**Upper bounds**||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**Control mean**<br>**(SD)**|(1)<br>Lee(-)|(2)<br>(+/-).25 SD|(3)<br>(+/-).1 SD|(1)|(2)<br>(-/+).1 SD|(3)<br>(-/+).25 SD|(1)<br>Lee(-)|
|HH is receivi|ngESSN transfers||||||||
|6 months|0.21|0.73***|0.69***|0.72***|0.73***|0.75***|0.77***|0.79***|
||(0.41)|(0.02)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.02)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.01)|
|12 months|0.37|0.44***|0.38***|0.42***|0.45***|0.47***|0.51***|0.53***|
||(0.48)|(0.02)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.02)|(0.01)|(0.02)|(0.02)|
|18 months|0.42|0.36***|0.28***|0.34***|0.37***|0.42***|0.48***|0.44***|
||(0.49)|(0.02)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.02)|(0.01)|(0.01)|(0.02)|
|Transfer amo<br>|unt in last month repo<br>|rted byHH<br>|||||||
|6 months|165.31|455.99***|459.02***|483.96***|497.70***|517.22***|542.16***|543.60***|
||(334.03)|(15.34)|(11.67)|(11.68)|(15.81)|(11.80)|(11.95)|(15.43)|
|12 months|264.05|262.52***|267.42***|301.18***|322.36***|346.19***|379.95***|378.25***|
||(371.32)|(16.46)|(12.25)|(12.31)|(17.40)|(12.53)|(12.78)|(17.48)|
|18 months|298.46|234.77***|219.22***|271.18***|294.28***|340.45***|392.41***|345.61***|
||(380.89)|(18.53)|(10.58)|(10.66)|(19.54)|(10.96)|(11.31)|(19.78)|

Note: Significance level p< 0.01 - ***, 0.05 - **, 0.1 - *; Robust standard errors in parentheses; Each coefficient in this table comes from a different regression of the outcome on a dummy for treatment that is fully-interacted with the propensity score; strata fixed effects are included (n=5); all regressions use IPW and sampling weights; column (4) presents the main results; columns (1) and (7) are estimated by trimming the top/bottom of the treatment group by the difference in attrition between the treatment and control, as in Lee (2009); columns (2) to (3) and (6) to (7) replace outcome values for the attritors with +/- 0.x standard deviations of their respective treatment group-wave means as in Kling and Liebman (2004), lower bounds subtract this value from the treatment group and add it to the control group and vice versa for the upper bounds.

<mark>Nonetheless, as can be seen in T</mark> able <mark>5 above, initial ESSN beneficiary status is still very highly predictive of</mark> <mark>receiving cash transfers at all follow-up rounds. Therefore, the initial treatment assignment (using IPW in our matched & trimmed sample) can be used to instrument for receiving cash transfers. Although the assignment is not randomized, the same conditional independence assumption for identification invoked above is sufficient for the validity of the instrument to identify the impact of receiving cash transfers for individuals who always received cash when deemed eligible at baseline and did not receive any cash transfers otherwise (see, e.g., Gilligan, Mvukiyehe, and Samii 2012).</mark> <mark>This is usually called the local average treatment effect, or LATE (Angrist, Imbens, and Rubin 1996), but our case differs slightly due to interference between treatment and control. Hence, for brevity, we refer to this estimand as the local average value of treatment, or LAVT. As funders of emergency cash transfer programs designed for refugees are much more likely to be interested in learning the value of actually receiving cash transfers rather than the effect of initial eligibility status, LAVT is likely to be a more pertinent estimand here.</mark> 21