Download Free Egypts Takaful And Karama Cash Transfer Program Evaluation Of Program Impacts And Recommendations Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Egypts Takaful And Karama Cash Transfer Program Evaluation Of Program Impacts And Recommendations and write the review.

Egypt has been providing cash to poor households through its first conditional cash transfer program, Takaful and Karama, a social protection program run by the Ministry of Social Solidarity (MoSS), since March 2015. Takaful (“Solidarity”) supports poor families with children under 18, while Karama (“Dignity”) supports the elderly poor and people living with disabilities. The cash transfer program has enrolled 2.25 million families across all of Egypt’s governorates. The amount of the Takaful cash transfer provided to households depends on the number of children and their school level. The Karama program provides a set amount per individual. In order to reach the poorest households, participants are selected using a proxy means test. In the Takaful program, 89 percent of recipients are women, while only 11 percent are men. Beginning in 2018, Takaful will also begin implementing conditionalities, requiring households in the program to ensure their children attend school and participate in health screenings, added to antenatal care for pregnant women and post-natal care. The Takaful and Karama program was evaluated by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) using both quantitative statistical methods (simple questions asked to many households during a survey) and qualitative methods (more in-depth questions asked to fewer households in longer interviews). The evaluation was designed to measure and explain the impacts of the cash transfers on household welfare, and to examine whether the program’s criteria for household selection were effective in identifying poor households. This brief, which focuses on the Takaful component of the program, summarizes the main findings from the evaluation and key recommendations.
This report of the evaluation study provides a greater focus on measuring the impact of the larger Takaful program and also attempts to measure the impact of the much smaller Karama program. In addition, IFPRI will conduct a qualitative assessment of the Takaful and Karama program focused on learning about the experience with the program among the poorest beneficiary households. This qualitative assessment will also draw lessons from the quantitative survey to provide another report on the experience of very poor households. The remainder of this report is organized as follows Chapter 2 provides an overview of the Takaful and Karama Program. Chapter 3 summarizes the impact evaluation design. Chapter 4 describes the evaluation survey and sample. Chapter 5 provides context for the program by using the survey data to summarize the characteristics of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households and describe beneficiaries’ experience with program implementation. Chapter 6 presents the impact estimates for Takaful and Chapter 7 the estimates for Karama. Chapter 8 uses data from a separate representative sample of households collected during the survey to assess the targeting performance of the program. Chapter 9 concludes and discusses implications for social policy in Egypt.
Since March 2015, the Government of Egypt has been providing cash to poor households through the Takaful and Karama program. The program is run by the Ministry of Social Solidarity (MoSS). Takaful supports poor families with children under 18 years of age, while Karama supports the poor elderly and disabled. For Takaful, the amount of cash that households receive depends on the number of children and their school level, while the Karama transfer is a set rate per individual. In 2018, Takaful will also begin requiring households in the program to make sure their children attend school and participate in health screenings. The program was evaluated by IFPRI, an international research organization, using both quantitative statistical methods (simple questions asked to many households during a survey) and qualitative methods (more in-depth questions asked to fewer households in longer interviews). The main goal of this evaluation was to measure and explain how the transfers affected the welfare of households in the program. In addition, the evaluation describes how well the program selection criteria work for identifying poor households.
This qualitative evaluation of the Takaful cash transfer program was conducted between January and April 2018 by a team of researchers trained in qualitative methods. The evaluation sought to further delve into and explain dimensions of the Takaful transfers’ impact on beneficiaries that were previously under-investigated in the quantitative survey. In so doing, the quantitative components’ findings were also further contextualized and clarified. This qualitative component’s main goals, therefore, were to explore the differences between the transfers’ impact on ultra-poor households and households near the threshold, the differences in how the two household types use the transfer, and the impact of the transfers on intrahousehold decision making with special focus on women.
Egypt introduced the Takaful and Karama Program (TKP), a pair of targeted cash transfer schemes in March 2015. Takaful and Karama was designed as a conditional cash transfer program providing income support targeted to the poor and most vulnerable; namely poor families with children (under 18 years of age), poor elderly (aged 65 years and above) and persons with severe disability. Originally implemented as an unconditional cash transfer, the program is now a conditional cash transfer program, but the conditionalities have yet to be monitored. Starting July 2017, households received EGP60 for each child under 6 years old, EGP80 for each child in primary education, EGP100 for children in preparatory education, and EGP140 for secondary education. As of June 2017, 90% of TKP beneficiaries were women. In 2018, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) completed the first round of impact evaluation of TKP, based on household survey data collected after the first 15 months of the program. The evaluation found that TKP substantially improved wellbeing for poor households, increasing household consumption per adult equivalent by 8.4 percent. and reducing the probability that a beneficiary household is poor (< USD1.90 per capita per day) by 11.4 percentage points, which is comparable to several of the well-known, large-scale programs in Latin America where consumption impacts are on the order of 7-8 percent.
Even though substantial progress has been achieved worldwide in reducing both poverty and malnutrition, much is yet to be done. There are signs that the progress made in both dimensions has stalled in recent years. Poor-quality diets have become a major driver for overweight and obesity and associated non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, heart diseases, and some types of cancers. Conflict and climate vulnerability have been identified as major obstacles to reaching Sustainable Development Goal targets related to malnutrition by 2030. In 2019, economic downturns and slowdowns hindered efforts even further. More recently, the COVID-19 crisis has imposed even harsher conditions to countries.Poverty and malnutrition are inevitably linked, and therefore addressing one can help address the other. Given that most of the world’s extremely poor people and stunted children live primarily in rural areas and rely mostly on agriculture, the agriculture and food systems approach can offer an opportunity to reduce both poverty and malnutrition. The food systems approach places equal emphasis on both the supply and demand dimensions that are critical for ensuring healthier diets and better nutrition for poor and vulnerable groups.This special issue of Policy in Focus is dedicated to answering a crucial question: How can a food systems approach be used to design and implement policies and investments that reach those most vulnerable to poverty, hunger, malnutrition, and suboptimal diets? We hope that the contributions contained in this volume, by leading academics and development practitioners, exploring the linkages between nutrition, food systems, and poverty, can help stakeholders and policymakers make inroads towards the promotion of food and nutrition security and the reduction of rural poverty.
Forsa, which means “Opportunity” in Arabic, is a new economic inclusion program of the government of the Arab Republic of Egypt. Implemented by the Ministry of Social Solidarity, the program aims to graduate beneficiaries of the national cash transfer program, the Takaful & Karama Program (TKP), to economic self-reliance by enabling them to engage in wage employment or sustainable economic enterprises. The 2021 World Bank Economic Inclusion report (Andrews et al. 2021) highlights a recent increase globally in such graduation or economic inclusion programs, which now reaches around 92 million beneficiaries from 20 million households across more than 75 countries. This rapid growth has necessitated an increasing demand for evidence on best practices in graduation program implementation. The newly designed Forsa program is based on the graduation approach, but with innovations drawing from theories of behavioral economics as well as creating a network of active youth volunteers for economic empowerment to reduce costs compared to the standard BRAC-inspired model. Forsa also expands the graduation model to include the option of wage-employment, rather than only focusing on self-employment. Evidence on the impact of job training programs linked to wage employment on both job retention and future earnings is mixed (McKenzie 2017), although most such programs do not include cash assistance. This impact evaluation of the Forsa program in Egypt is intended to contribute to the global evidence on effective graduation program design as well as provide immediate policy-relevant guidance for the Ministry of Social Solidarity. The impact evaluation will measure the degree to which Forsa is successful at increasing household consumption and will investigate which participant groups and program features demonstrate the greatest improvements in household welfare and economic activity.
Food systems are at a critical juncture—they are evolving quickly to meet growing and changing demand but are not serving everyone’s needs. Building more inclusive food systems can bring a wide range of economic and development benefits to all people, especially the poor and disadvantaged. IFPRI’s 2020 Global Food Policy Report examines the policies and investments and the growing range of tools and technologies that can promote inclusion. Chapters examine the imperative of inclusion, challenges faced by smallholders, youth, women, and conflict-affected people, and the opportunities offered by expanding agrifood value chains and national food system transformations. Critical questions addressed include: How can inclusive food systems help break the intergenerational cycle of poverty and malnutrition? \What can be done to strengthen the midstream of food value chains to improve rural access to jobs, markets, and services? Will Africa’s food systems generate sufficient jobs for the growing youth population? How can women be empowered within food system processes, from household decisions to policymaking? Can refugees and other conflict-affected people be integrated into food systems to help them rebuild their lives? How can national food system transformations contribute to greater dietary diversity, food safety, and food quality for all? Regional sections look at how inclusion can be improved around the world in 2020 and beyond. The report also presents interesting trends revealed by IFPRI’s food policy indicators and datasets.
Is there a one-size-fits-all approach to inclusive growth? We look at four key case studies across advanced and emerging markets—the Nordics, India, Brazil, and Egypt—to try to answer this question. We highlight qualitatively in these countries the key components of inclusive growth models, outcomes from these models, and the road ahead in the respective countries. Some of the analysis focuses on co-operative labor markets in the Nordics, direct benefit transfers in India, the role of social assistance and commodity boom in Brazil, and the inequality puzzle in Egypt. The paper finds that there is a lack of homogeneity among the approaches by these countries and identifies the need for customized solutions to inclusive growth. A one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t seem to work. The more customized the inclusive growth model, the better the overall outcome.