# _4.2 Individual level outputs_

The survey provided intermediate outputs and mechanisms that could help explain the previously reported impacts: whether an individual had heard about the call for proposals and whether they recognized any of the posters for their particular experimental group. The treatment estimates of these outcomes are in Table 7, controlling for covariates, including the one that was unbalanced.

**Table 7: Individual-level outputs (survey)**

_(Models 1, 3, and 5 use T0 as comparison/base group, while 2, 4, and 6 use T1)_

||Heard of<br>call|Heard of<br>call|Recognizes<br>posters|Recognizes<br>posters|Recognizes posters<br>or heard of call|Recognizes posters<br>or heard of call|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|
|T1|0.047||0.097||0.081||
||(0.025)*||(0.045)**||(0.048)*||
||[0.060]||[0.032]||[0.091]||
|T2|0.036|-0.010|0.108|0.011|0.084|0.003|
||(0.023)|(0.023)|(0.044)**|(0.056)|(0.044)*|(0.057)|
||[0.120]|[0.650]|[0.013]|[0.837]|[0.058]|[0.959]|
|T0||-0.047||-0.097||-0.081|
|||(0.025)*||(0.045)**||(0.048)*|
|||[0.060]||[0.032]||[0.091]|
|Adj Base<br>Mean|0.050|0.097|0.111|0.207|0.152|0.233|
|N|1,480|1,480|1,483|1,483|1,483|1,483|
|Specification|Logit|Logit|Logit|Logit|Logit|Logit|
|Base|T0|T1|T0|T1|T0|T1|

* p<0.1; ** p<0.05; *** p<0.01. P-values in squared brackets. Robust standard errors clustered by localities in parenthesis. Coefficients of logits are marginal effects. Covariates include: age and dummy variables for women married or in a partnership, complete primary education or less, whether they have children, whether they talk an indigenous language, and state entity.

Approximately 5% (adjusted) of women in T0 had heard about the call for proposal for the World Bank project, compared with 9.7% in T1 and 8.6% in T2. This means survey respondents who live in a locality where T1 was implemented were 4.7 percentage point (pp) more likely to have heard of the call for proposals. Additionally, 11.1% of surveyed women in T0 recognized at least one of the posters related to the call for proposals. Women in T1 and T2 were more likely to recognize posters compared to women in T0 by 9.7pp and 10.88pp, respectively. Taken together, approximately 15.2% of women in T0 had heard about the call for proposals _or_ recognized at least one poster. Models 5 and 6 in Table 7 were run with this combined outcome variable. Compared to T0, T1 and T2 saw a respective 8.1 pp and 8.4 pp increase in women that had either heard of the call for proposals or recognized at least one poster, significant at the 10% confidence level.

# _4.3 Exploratory analysis of applications_

Although the objective of the outreach strategy was specifically to increase the number of applications submitted, we wanted to better understand the reasons behind the low success of applications in getting selected for funding. Hence, we perfomed an exploratory analysis of all applications received by the call for proposals for this program in Oaxaca and Yucatán, even outside the RCT sample localities. The analysis below will focus specifically on comparing applications from our RCT sample with those submitted from other localities. There are two important issues to highlight. First, that this analysis is exploratory rather than causal, as we did not have an experimental variation or comparable groups for this analysis. Second, that we are comparing 15