provided with their own voucher package for FP services. BAF voucher women were allowed to bring anyone with them, but since the voucher could only be used for FP, they were encouraged to bring someone who could make use of FP services. BAF voucher women could bring up to two peers during any given visit and they could bring different peers or the same peers on subsequent visits. During their first visit to the clinic with a BAF voucher woman, her peers were provided with their own vouchers and identification cards by one of the field managers who was stationed at the ADC to receive clients; thereafter, they could visit the clinic with or without the BAF voucher woman. There was no restriction on the total number of unique peers a BAF voucher woman could bring to the clinic over the 10-month period, as long as she did not bring more than two peers per visit. If a BAF woman came to the clinic with her husband, only one voucher could be used for the couple, and the existing FP operating procedure of the clinic for couples was followed. The intervention team made it clear that women could not apply two vouchers at once to increase the total discount. This ensured that a BAF-peer who herself also happened to be assigned to either the Own voucher or BAF voucher arms could not combine her own voucher with the peer discount.

The voucher package that peers of a BAF woman received when they accompanied her to the clinic is essentially equivalent to the Own voucher package. Specifically, peers of a BAF woman were not entitled to receive additional vouchers for their other peers. Own voucher women were also free to bring peer(s) with them to the clinic if they chose; however, they were not actively encouraged to do so by the study team and any peers who accompanied them to the clinic were not provided a voucher unless they had their own voucher.

At the end of the 10-month intervention period, 625 women (93.2 percent of the baseline sample) were re-interviewed either in person or via phone for the endline survey.<sup>21</sup> Figure 1 provides details on the reasons for attrition. Table A.2 shows that there are no significant differences between attritors and non-attritors in terms of treatment status and along a range of baseline characteristics that are relevant for the study. Although the joint F-statistic is also insignificant, at baseline, non-attritors were significantly more likely to report that their mothers-in-law were opposed to FP and were more likely to use an FP method than nonattritors.<sup>22</sup> The imbalance by mother-in-law opposition is less worrisome because it biases us against finding a positive effect on FP access and use. However, it is unclear whether the imbalance by baseline FP is likely to bias our estimates upward or downward.<sup>23</sup>

> 21We conducted 18 percent of the endline surveys by phone mainly because some women could not be contacted at their recorded locations from baseline, either because they had moved or were visiting someone outside their homes. As per our protocol, we made up to three attempts to contact each woman at her home, after which we attempted to contact her by phone if she was not available. As Table A.3 shows, there are no observable differences in the baseline characteristics and treatment status between women who were surveyed in person or by phone at endline.

> 22Although our attrition rate is relatively low, we estimated Lee bounds for the treatment impacts and find that our main results are not driven by selective attrition. These results are available upon request.

> 23For instance, women who had previously used an FP method at baseline may be more likely to use our vouchers to switch from other providers to the ADC. However, such women may also be less likely to report

8