estimate corroborates the average increase in assistance across the entire country documented in figure 1. Following the announcement in March 2017, the share receiving food assistance increased by 19.3 percentage points. Column (2) adds governorate fixed effects and control variables to the specification, and the estimates are qualitatively identical.

Column (3) re-estimates the specification estimated in column (2), but replaces _Postrt_ with indicators equaling one if the survey came from individual quarters of each year.<sup>31</sup> The estimates help indicate how uniform the change in food assistance was over time, and further corroborate the stability of food assistance both before and after the announcement. There was little change immediately after the announcement in the second quarter of 2017 relative to the first quarter; and beginning in the third quarter of 2017, there was a 20 percentage point increase in the average share receiving food assistance. However, the increase magnified over the time period, with the increase being approximately five percentage points larger by the second quarter of 2018.<sup>32</sup> Column (4) estimates the full form of specification (1) and demonstrates that there were larger increases in assistance targeted at regions that were classified as having the worst food emergency. The non-IPC 4 regions of the country, which represent the majority of the population, had an increase in the share receiving food assistance by 13.9 percentage points (coefficient on _Postrt_ ). However, there was a 9.5 percentage point larger increase in IPC 4 regions (coefficient on _Postrt ∗ IPC_ 4 _r_ ).<sup>33</sup> Combined with the fact that IPC 4 regions were already receiving a larger amount of assistance prior to this increase, the share of respondents receiving food assistance after the 2017 IPC announcement was significantly higher than in the rest of the country.

Lastly, column (5) investigates whether the increase in assistance was uniform across all the governorates identified as IPC 4 in the 2017 IPC announcement. Specifically, column (5) re-estimates the specification reported in column (4), but further estimates the increase in assistance separately for each governorate classified as IPC 4.<sup>34</sup> The estimates in column (5) demonstrate that although the increase in assistance was the largest for IPC 4 regions on average, the increase was not uniform across all IPC 4 governorates. One can reject the hypothesis that the increase in all governorates was equal (p-value 0.0000). Additionally, there were some governorates that had increases that were similar to the increase experienced by the rest of the country (e.g., Shabwah), while there were two governorates that had increases that were nearly three times that of the majority of the country (e.g., Lahj and Sa’ada). Although we do not have a precise explanation for why there are large differences amongst IPC 4 regions, one possibility is that the targeting of food assistance does not rely exclusively on the official IPC announcements. For example, the results are consistent with

> 31For example, _Q_ 2 ~~2~~ 017 denotes an indicator equaling one if the survey occurred in either April, May, or June of 2017; and _Postrt_ is equal to the sum of all quarter indicators from _Q_ 2 ~~2~~ 017 and on.

> 32The p-value of the test of all increases following the 2017 IPC announcement being identical was 0.062.

> 33In results not reported, the increase was similar in all non-IPC 4 regions.

> 34Specifically, _Postrt_ is interacted with indicators for each of the seven governorates that received the IPC 4 classification in the announcement. The sum of each of the governorate indicators would equal the IPC 4 indicator used in the specification in column (3).

12