# **5.2 Intent-to-Treat Estimates of Program Impacts**

We start by presenting intent-to-treat (ITT) estimates, which can be read directly from figures showing outcomes as a function of the distance to the municipality’s cutoff. We investigate three groups of outcomes for which we have information in the Ficha CAS and the FPS: the take-up of subsidies and of employment programs, labor market outcomes, and housing conditions. We estimate program impacts measured 2 and 4 years after a family first enrolled in the program (in the Appendix we also present impacts measured 6 years after program enrolment, which can only be calculated for families that (potentially) started the program in 2002 or 2003). All variable definitions are given in table A.5 in the appendix.

Figure 5.2 shows estimates of the relationship between outcomes and the distance to the municipality and cohort specific cutoffs. The vertical line shows the point in the x-axis where this distance is equal to zero, i.e., the point of discontinuity. Outcomes are measured two years after potential program enrollment (figure B.7 in Appendix presents similar figures but for outcomes measured four years after potential entry). The dots in the figures correspond to cell means for the outcomes after we divide the sample according to CAS scores into bins of size 2. The lines in the figures are local linear regressions estimates of the outcomes on the distance to the effective cutoff, separately for eligible and ineligible families.<sup>33</sup> The figure also include 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 5.2 suggests that there is an increase in the take-up of SUF (child allowance) and SAP (water subsidy) at the eligibility cutoff. We show below that the regression estimates are statistically significant for SUF<sup>34</sup> , even though there is overlap in the pointwise confidence intervals on each side of the discontinuity. The next panel in the figure concerns the take-up of employment programs by FOSIS, by either the head of the household or the spouse. They show an increase in the probability of participation in the employment programs at the cutoff, which is stronger for the head than for the spouse. In the regressions below we can reject the null hypothesis that these impacts are equal to zero. The third row concerns the probability of legal ownership of the house and access water from public network, and, the bottom panel concerns the employment status of head and spouse. We do not find any statistically differences on average outcomes on either side of the cutoff for these four outcomes.

Table 3 summarizes our results. The first column of table 3 shows the control-mean, that is, the mean of the variable considered for the sample of just ineligible families (with CAS score at most 4 points above the cutoff). The next 8 columns present estimates and sample size for the samples used to study effects of two (columns 2-5) and four (columns 6-9) years of exposure. Columns (2)

> 33We use a bandwidth equal to 8. We have also tried using bandwidths equal to 6 and 10, which resulted in fairly similar figures, see figure B.8 in the Appendix.

> 34The sample used for the impacts on SUF conditions on the presence of children in family before 2001, since poor families with children are the target of this subsidy.

23