Ultra-Poor Graduation Pilot in Peru
Last registered on September 25, 2013


Trial Information
General Information
Ultra-Poor Graduation Pilot in Peru
Initial registration date
Not yet registered
Last updated
September 25, 2013 3:37 PM EDT
Primary Investigator
Northwestern University
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Yale University; Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA)
Additional Trial Information
On going
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
The Ultra Poor Graduation Pilot in Peru is a part of the CGAP/Ford Foundation global initiative, currently being implemented in eight countries, that combines safety net programs with entrepreneurial activities to develop a graduation model for the poorest households. In 2009, we conducted a baseline survey for 2,400 ultra-poor households in the Canas and Acomayo provinces in the Department of Cusco, Peru. Eight hundred households were randomly selected in 40 treatment communities (on average 20 households per community) to receive the intervention. The treatment households received an intensive support package including: livelihood trainings, productive asset transfer, consumption support, healthcare, and financial services. By investing in this multifaceted approach, the program strives to eliminate the need for long-term safety net services. Two follow-up surveys are conducted in July-September 2013 and July-September 2014.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Karlan, Dean and Bram Thuysbaert. 2013. "Ultra-Poor Graduation Pilot in Peru." AEA RCT Registry. September 25. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.61-1.0.
Sponsors & Partners

There are documents in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
Experimental Details
The Ultra Poor Graduation Pilot in Peru provides 800 hundred treatment households in Canas and Acomayo provinces in the Department of Cusco, Peru, with a comprehensive support package over a two year period. This included: 9 months of consumption support (in cash), a productive asset, access to a savings account and a series of group and individual training sessions in areas relevant to their productive assets and themes related to microfinance, entrepreneurship and social improvement for a period of 24 months. During this time period, beneficiaries were also paid weekly monitoring visits. At the end of the 24 month period, every household had the option to request a loan from Arariwa to move forward with its new livelihood strategy.

Some households in these provinces were already receiving consumption support through an ongoing project, Juntos. The Ultra Poor Graduation project provided a nine-month cash stipend equivalent to US$35 to those not already receiving it from Juntos.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Income, assets, consumption, savings, school attendance of children, health and food security
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
The project was conducted in 80 communities in the provinces of Canas and Acomayo. The impact evaluation was designed to measure both direct effects and indirect effects (spillover effects). Eligible households in the two provinces were identified using Participatory Wealth Rankings (PWR). Two thousand, four hundred households were identified using this process.

The randomization of households into treatment and control consisted of two steps. First, half of the 80 communities were randomly selected to be control communities. None of the households in these control communities received any of the pilot project services. In the 40 treatment communities, we further randomized at the household level. Twenty households per village were randomly selected as treatment households. Those eligible households not chosen for treatment comprised the control households. Comparing the control households in the treatment villages with those in the pure comparison villages will allow the study to measure spillover effects.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
The randomization was conducted in the office by computer. A rerandomization procedure was used to ensure balance on a number of village- and household-level variables.
Randomization Unit
Communities, then within the treatment communities, control households and treatment households
Was the treatment clustered?
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
80 communities
Sample size: planned number of observations
2,400 households
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
800 households in control villages
800 control households in treatment villages
800 treatment households in treatment villages
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB Name
Yale University Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
IRB Name
Innovations for Poverty Action IRB - USA
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Is the intervention completed?
Is data collection complete?
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
Program Files
Program Files
Reports and Papers
Preliminary Reports
Relevant Papers