computations begin by estimating a propensity score equation, and then match the treated with the control villages (or households, in the case of the microcredit results) in the area of common support. As discussed above, the “Regression” columns report the results of estimating the impact equation in the area of common support, weighting the observations with the inverse of the propensity score.

The single largest component of the SFD interventions in education has been the provision of literacy classes, which have enrolled almost 1.5 million people. It may be seen from Table 9 that this has had a measurable effect in reducing the proportion of people who are illiterate (by about 0.04; the mean value is 0.29) and providing literacy certificates (up by about 0.08; the mean value is 0.37). These results are robust, in the sense that they apply to all three comparisons. However, the efforts have not had any clear effect on the employment rate, and they are associated with higher, rather than lower, poverty rates, which is unexpected. One possibility is that SFD educational projects equip people to leave their villages and find better jobs elsewhere; this could actually increase the local poverty rate, if this process allows the less-poor to leave.

**Table** **<u>9. Summary of Effects of SFD Interventions in Education</u>**

|||SFD inte<br>inter|rvention vs<br>vention[A v|. no SFD<br>s. B]|SFD int<br>interve|ervention on<br>ntion at all[|ly vs. no<br>D vs. F]|SFD inter<br>other inter|vention with<br>ventions on|others vs.<br>ly [C vs. E]|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Mean|Regres-<br>sion|Nearest<br>Neighbor|Kernel|Regres-<br>sion|Nearest<br>Neighbor|Kernel|Regres-<br>sion|Nearest<br>Neighbor|Kernel|
|**Outcome:**|||||||||||
|% who got|0.37|0.08***|0.01|0.07**|0.08**|0.02|0.09*|0.08**|0.05|0.10|
|<br>certificate†||(2.72)|(0.18)|(2.01)|(1.99)|(0.25)|(1.93)|(1.96)|(0.53)|(1.62)|
|**Impacts:**|||||||||||
|Illiteracy rate|0.29|-0.04***|-0.02|-0.01|-0.04***|-0.02|-0.02|-0.03**|-0.02|-0.004|
|||(-4.8)|(-0.08)|(-1.08)|(-3.55)|(-0.76)|(-1.10)|(-2.20)|(-0.19)|(-0.19)|
|Employment|0.95|-0.005|-0.01|-0.003|0.002|-0.0004|0.003|-0.01**|-0.01|-0.01|
|<br>rate||(-1.52)|(-0.81)|(-0.53)|(0.58)|(-0.05)|(0.63)|(-2.38)|(-0.59)|(-1.11)|
|Poverty rate|4.1|0.04*|1.40**|0.95**|0.26|0.71|0.63|0.51|1.08|1.22|
|||(1.71)|(2.34)|(2.39)|(0.88)|(0.99)|(1.30)|(1.45)|(1.21)|(1.60)|

_Notes:_ † Numbers in parentheses are t-statistics, * significant at 10% level, ** significant at 5% level, *** significant at 1% level. † % of participants who obtained a certificate. All results are derived by first estimating a propensity score equation, and then confining the regression, nearest-neighbor matching, or kernel matching, to the region of common support. _Source:_ Authors’ calculations based on HIECS and community survey 2004/2005.

SFD health projects mainly consist of renovating health centers, training personnel, and conducting health awareness campaigns. The clearest and most consistent effect of this spending is that it reduces annual spending on health, by about LE 9 per household (the mean spending is LE 51). There is also a clear and strong effect on the under-5 mortality rate, which now stands at 19.9 per thousand, but is reduced by about 6 per thousand as a result of SFD interventions.

However, the effect of health interventions on the poverty rate is less clear. When SFD interventions occur in addition to other interventions (the C vs. E comparison), they appear to lower the poverty rate, _Impact Evaluation: Egyptian Social Fund for Development_ _Version of June 29, 2009_ _Page 18 of 36_