The data we have on the Reduced Consumption Coping Strategies Index (rCSI) perhaps provide some clues on this puzzle. The index is significantly improved at the 6-month follow-up in the treatment group by 0.15-0.25 SD. However, consistent with the impacts on consumption and the FCS index, the effect is small and statistically insignificant at the 12-month follow-up, while turning negative and statistically significant at the 18month follow-up. Looking at the components of this index (Appendix Table 11), we can see that while the treatment group was less likely to reduce number of meals per day, portion sizes, and consumption among adults so that children can eat at the 6-month follow-up, they were equally or even more likely to use these coping strategies by the 18-month period. The reversal of the program impacts for the treatment group over time is likely explained by three, likely correlated, changes in the control group: (a) the strong trend showing a reduction in these coping strategies, (b) a smaller average household size, and (c) increased eligibility for ESSN. We also have information on the Livelihoods Coping Strategies Index (LSCI). Consistent with the evidence presented so far, refugee households in the treatment group are initially less likely to resort to livelihoods-based coping strategies, but this effect disappears by the 12-month follow-up. At 0.16-0.25 SD, the standardized treatment effect on this index at the 6-month follow-up is very similar to that for the rCSI. Examining the components of the index (Appendix Table 12), we see that, at the 6-month follow-up, the treatment group is less likely to sell HH assets, dip into savings, borrow money from non-relatives, buy food on credit or reduce expenditures on food, or to have moved or returned to country of origin during the past 30 days.<sup>30</sup> However, by the 18-month follow-up, not only have all of these effects disappeared, but treatment households report being more likely to reduce food expenditures and consume unusual types of foods. Hence, the evidence from this index is also consistent with the value of treatment for initial program beneficiaries on total consumption, FCS, and rCSI – strong and positive at the 6-month follow-up and dissipating afterwards. We again note the strong positive trend for this index in the control group, showing a 0.37 SD reduction in the use of these coping strategies by the 18-month follow-up.

Finally, despite the increased consumption expenditures on education, there is no discernible effect on the proportion of school-aged children attending school . Appendix Table 14 indicates that this is also true for indicator variables for ‘all school-aged children attending school’ and ‘no school-aged children attending school.’ However, the lack of average treatment effects is concealing some impact heterogeneity on school participation – please see next section.<sup>31</sup>

> 30 At the 6-month follow-up, 6% of control households reported at least one member returning to the country of origin. ESSN seems to have reduced this rate by half to 3%. Given that a major push factor for refugees to return to their countries of origin is lack of income/livelihoods (Hall 2018), this is an expected impact of ESSN that may have contributed to the differential changes in household composition. If, in addition, poorer households in the control group were more likely to move away from Turkey (and, hence, to be lost to our study), our unadjusted treatment effects would be biased downwards.

> 31 The reader should note that, if control households are sending children who would not have been in school to treatment households, this would also lower the VT by increasing the mean enrollment in the control group.

27