the likelihood of systematic underreporting of incomes and assets by control households is considered low because (1) the data collection team did not reveal its connection with the CfW program, but, rather, identified itself as a national statistical office team that was conducting a socioeconomic survey; and (2) the endline survey took place in the days immediately after the control households had been registered for the CfW program; so, there was no incentive to underreport to influence the selection process. To the extent that control households had an incentive to underreport to participate in future rounds of the CfW or other programs, the treatment communities would have been subject to the same level of underreporting as the control communities.

Another possible concern relates to anticipation effects on the part of the control households. The control households could have made certain decisions (especially in relation to intrahousehold labor allocation) or delayed certain investments (for example, in new businesses) in anticipation of the CfW program, which would have led to the over‐ or underestimation of program impacts. The possibility of anticipation effects is considered low given that there was no systematic announcement or publicity related to the CfW program well in advance of the program launch among treatment or control communities. There is, in general, also considerable unpredictability associated with the delivery of government programs in Sierra Leone so that it is unlikely households would re‐optimize in anticipation of a government program.

# **IV. Descriptive Analysis**

## **A. Subproject Characteristics**

The community‐specific infrastructure projects organized within the CfW program are referred to as subprojects. The CfW subprojects had national coverage and were spread fairly evenly across urban and rural areas. Figure 2a shows the geographical distribution of all the subprojects covered under the evaluation; Figure 2b shows the precise location of the treatment sites based on Global Positioning System data.<sup>16</sup> The most common types of subprojects are feeder road rehabilitation projects (67 percent), inland valley swamp rice projects (9 percent), and other agricultural projects (13 percent).<sup>17</sup> The average labor intensity of the subprojects—the share of subproject costs allocated toward wages—was 60 percent, but there was some variance; road subprojects were typically less labor intensive. Given that the program was put in place following the food and fuel price crisis, seasonal considerations were not detailed in the project documents (World Bank 2010); however, where possible, the program aimed to align the timing of subproject implementation with seasonality concerns. In practice, the treatment subprojects were implemented between April and July or August, which coincides with the end of the agricultural harvest period and the beginning of the lean season.

## **B. Beneficiary Characteristics**

The data from the beneficiary tracker survey indicate that the CfW program reached primarily youth with low levels of educational attainment who were working in the agricultural sector. The program also met the gender targets and did not induce negative impacts on schooling among the young participants. While in this sense the program succeeded in reaching the target population, targeting performance was weaker

> 16 Global Positioning System data were collected only from treatment sites.

> 17 Inland valley swamp rice projects refer to the establishment of a specific type of rice production system.

9