_Randomization strategy._ We randomized 1,332 participants to one of two brief psychosocial motivational interventions (“personal initiative” or “interpersonal initiative”, n=666 per group) and 1,296 to a control condition. These randomizations were stratified by timing of the delivery of the main multi-faceted ASP program components (Early: February-March / Late: April), the policy experiment treatment arm (Full: all components / Psychosocial: all components except a one-off cash grant), and participation in the policy experiment baseline survey (Y/N). Randomization of the intervention occurred at the individual level. However, women participants in the multi-faceted ASP program were organized into groups for other program activities (e.g., skills trainings, savings associations). On top of the individual-level randomization, we included a group-level randomization, such that those groups were assigned to have to have 25% (n=36 groups), 50% (n=36 groups), 75% (n=36 groups) of their group members treated with either psychosocial intervention. These groups had between 11 to 33 women participants, with an average of 25.

Randomization produced well-balanced conditions on pre-registered key sociodemographic variables, including a poverty proxy score, age, nomad status, living in a hamlet outside the village versus inside the village, and household head status, as well as randomization strata (see Table S4). Note that randomization was not balanced on the randomization stratum of participation in the policy experiment trial and that all analyses control for this variable, as with other randomization strata variables. Response rates in the endline survey were high overall, with 95% of the sample participating. Attrition was minimal in magnitude with 5% ( _N=_ 135) lost to follow-up (see Fig. S2). However, attrition was marginally differential across conditions: 5.7% (N=74) in the control, 6.0% (N=40) in Personal Initiative, and 3.2% (N=21) in Interpersonal Initiative condition. According to a logistic regression controlling for stratification variables and applying robust standard errors, those in the Interpersonal Initiative condition were less likely to show attrition than those in the control condition ( β = -0.52, _p_ =0.038) but attrition did not differ between the control and Personal Initiative conditions ( β = 0.16, _p_ =0.446). Attrition was associated with older age ( β =0.01, _p_ =0.025) and with status as head of household ( β =0.50, _p_ =0.030). Table S5 presents full analyses. Table S7 presents robustness analyses which show that patterns of results on economic and psychosocial outcomes remain the same when controlling for these two variables of age and status of head of household.

_Statistical power_ . The study was powered for a minimum detectable effect (MDE) size between the psychosocial treatment (pooled) and the control condition of Cohen’s _d_ of 0.11. This target MDE required n=1,228 for the two psychosocial intervention arms and n=1,296 for the control arm, before adjusting for control variables. Assuming a rate of 8% for non-participation, survey error, and attrition, our target sample size was N=1,332.

# _Treatment Conditions_

The experiment was conducted after a community event designed to introduce villages to the multi-faceted ASP poverty reduction program, which consisted of a 20-minute film and 37