Finally, for each set of educational outcomes, cognitive outcomes, socioemotional outcomes, and SES and subjective well-being, we also calculate an overall “family index,” following Anderson (2008).<sup>24</sup> These indices have the benefit of reducing the number of statistical tests (and the temptation to selectively focus on positive results). In constructing the indices, we ensured that the qualitative “direction” of the construct was preserved—higher values point to more desirable outcomes. However, our index construction is atheoretical and may therefore group together measurements with different underlying constructs. We therefore present and discuss results from both individual measurements and the family indices.

> 22Filmer and Scott (2012) show that such an IRT approach produces similar household rankingsFilmer and Scott (2012) show that such an IRT approach produces similar household rankings when compared to other aggregation methods.

> 23We standardize by focusing on the endline measures for control group students (who would have qualified for at least one of the two types of scholarships, had they been in a treatment school instead).

> 24We also considered using an alternative index instead, following Kling et al. (2007). The alternative approach does not lead to qualitatively different conclusions.

higher rungs correspond to higher socio-economic status. They were then asked to place themselves on this ladder in relation to everyone in their community. As a second measure of socio-economic status, we construct an index of respondents’ household assets, asking whether they possess items from a list similar to the one presented in Table 2. To calculate an individual’s latent SES score, we borrow from the psychometric literature and estimate a two-parameter logistic (2PL) IRT model, placing responses from 2009, 2011 and 2016 on the same scale.<sup>22</sup> We also asked respondents to rate their satisfaction with life at present, all things considered, on a scale from one (“completely dissatisfied”) to ten (“completely satisfied”) and to rate their quality of life and health, respectively, on a scale from one (“poor”) to five (“excellent”). The fifth and last measure screens for (minor) mental health disorders, using the General Health Questionnaire (“GHQ”). We use the short form of the questionnaire (GHQ-12) with Likert scoring (Goldberg and Williams 2006; Quek et al. 2001). All six measures are standardized (mean zero and standard deviation of one).<sup>23</sup> Finally, for each set of educational outcomes, cognitive outcomes, socioemotional outcomes, and SES and subjective well-being, we also calculate an overall “family index,” following Anderson (2008).<sup>24</sup> These indices have the benefit of reducing the number of statistical tests (and the temptation to selectively focus on positive results). In constructing the indices, we ensured that the qualitative “direction” of the construct was preserved—higher values point to more desirable outcomes. However, our index construction is atheoretical and may therefore group together measurements with different underlying constructs. We therefore present and discuss results from both individual measurements and the family indices. 22Filmer and Scott (2012) show that such an IRT approach produces similar household rankingsFilmer and Scott (2012) show that such an IRT approach produces similar household rankings when to other methods.

17