The single application in the control group had a team of 22 people, of which half were women, and with a male team leader. Given the strong change in the number of applications between T0 and the other groups, it is not surprising that the average values of these indicators related to the teams also show a large change. While comparisons between T0 and the other groups are still valid because we compare the _average_ number per locality, we should note that the comparisons between T1 and T2 for these indicators may be more meaningful given the variety of applications and teams. In terms of number of applications that had a female leader, on average, there was a 1.113 and 1.889 increase for T1 and T2, respectively, as compared to T0. There was again no significant difference between T1 and T2. In terms of applications that had an all women group, T1 did not have a statistically significant effect compared to T0. T2, however, showed an increase of 0.433 applications compared to T1.

Even though the objective of the outreach strategy and the RCT was specifically to increase the number of applications submitted, especially by women, we also looked into the applications that ultimately were selected to receive a grant. As shown in Table 6, the increase in the average number of applications did not translate into a higher average number of applications per locality that were ultimately selected to receive grants. Actually, only one application from T2 was selected. Additional information about this individual analysis may be found in section 4.3.

**Table 6. Treatment effects of locality level variables, as compared to T1.**

||Applications|Female<br>leader|All-women<br>group|Selected|Total people|Total<br>women|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|T0|-2.308|-1.113|-0.124|0.002|-7.110|-3.508|
||(0.667)***|(0.422)***|(0.106)|(0.007)|(2.945)**|(1.676)**|
||[0.001]|[0.010]|[0.247]|[0.765]|[0.018]|[0.039]|
|T2|0.485|0.776|0.433|0.025|8.469|6.381|
||(0.910)|(0.606)|(0.190)**|(0.025)|(5.154)|(3.186)**|
||[0.596]|[0.204]|[0.025]|[0.323]|[0.104]|[0.048]|
|Adj Base Mean|2.466|1.195|.125||8.781|4.248|
|N|113|113|113|113|113|113|
|Specification|OLS|OLS|OLS|OLS|OLS|OLS|
|Base|T1|T1|T1|T1|T1|T1|

* p<0.1; ** p<0.05; *** p<0.01. P-values in squared brackets. Robust standard errors clustered by agrarian unit in parenthesis. Covariates include: adult population in the locality, the proportion of adult woman in the locality, the proportion of a woman of 3 years or older speaking an indigenous language, the localities’ marginalization index of 2010, the number of grants awarded from CONAFOR between 2007-2017, and a dummy of state.

As applications were submited as a group, the study analyzed the total number of people that were part of the applications. This statistic was disaggregated by gender. As for previous indicators, on average, there was a significant increase in terms of total people and, specifically, the number of women that applied in both T1 and T2 localities (compared to T0). Both indicators were higher in T2 than T1. Although “total people” only barely missed the 10% significance threshold (p-value = 0.104), “total women” was significant at the 5% confidence level. As partially captured in the indicator of “All-women group”, the proportion of women in teams from T2 was higher than in T1, with the distribution of T2 skewed to the right (see Graph 2).

13