As Panel B2 of Online Appendix Table A11 shows, midline impacts for the endline sample (i.e., only households with a phone), using the endline indicators adapted to shorter phone interviews, are very similar to the impacts for the whole UP sample reported in Bedoya et al. (2019). Two years after the asset transfer, compared to UP households in the control group, treatment households reported higher consumption by 31% (p-value _<_ 0.005) with higher income and revenues by 11% (p-value = 0.317) and larger women’s market work participation by 22 percentage points (p-value _<_ 0.005). The financial situation of the treatment households is impacted with lower value of household’s outstanding loans by 50% (p-value = 0.008) and higher value of livestock by 397% (p-value _<_ 0.005). Women in treatment households reported higher women’s psychological well-being, measured by a 3-component index, by 0.58 SD (p-value _<_ 0.005), and higher women’s empowerment, as per a 3-component index, by 0.76 SD (p-value _<_ 0.005) as well as higher children’s school enrollment by 6 percentage points (p-value = 0.024) (see Online Appendix Table A17 for children’s school enrollment results). Overall, impacts across multiple dimensions of well-being were large and significant at midline, two years after the asset transfer.

Although attenuated, these impacts persists five years after the asset transfer. In the following section, we report endline impacts—between January and June 2021—per outcome group.

# **5.1 Consumption, Food Security and Nutritional Diversity**

Five years after the asset transfer, the intervention continues to have a significant impact on consumption among treatment households. Our consumption proxy is 16% (p-value = 0.015) larger in the treatment group than in the control group (Table 2).<sup>19,20</sup> The intervention also increases an index of food security for treatment households by 0.09 SD (p-value = 0.115), compared to control, however, this impact is not statistically significant. It is worth putting these results into context. Due to food price increases, food consumption in constant terms decreased by 27% in the control group between midline (July–October 2018) and endline (January–June 2021) (Figure IV), while total consumption decreased by 8% during the same period (not shown). Therefore, these impacts occur while households in both treatment and control groups are experiencing decreases in food and overall consumption, as well as in food security.

While we observe higher consumption together with small but statistically insignificant improvements in our measures of food security, we find that the intervention improved the nutritional quality of the food consumed by treatment households, consistent with the literature (Subramanian & Deaton, 1996; Strauss

> & Thomas, 1995; Subramanian & Deaton, 1996).<sup>21</sup> As Table 2 shows, per-capita consumption for UP

> 19Our proxy includes 29 items with the greatest explanatory power (75% and 59% of the variation in total consumption at baseline and midline for the UP and non-UP households, respectively).

> 20Further details on the consumption proxy are in Online Appendix Text 2. Comparison of control means and impacts across all main outcomes and their proxies for the midline and endline samples can be found in Table A11 of the Online Appendix.

> 21The food security index incorporates indicators related to the _extensive_ margin, i.e., whether the household experienced

18