at least one eligible woman, i.e., a married woman aged 18-30 who (i) had at least one living child, (ii) was neither sterilized nor had undergone a hysterectomy, and (iii) was neither currently pregnant nor within six months postpartum. These inclusion criteria were selected to identify a sample of young married women of reproductive age with a potential unmet need of FP and for whom an FP intervention, such as ours, would likely be effective.<sup>15</sup> We enrolled no more than one woman per household. If multiple women from the same household were eligible based on the inclusion criteria mentioned above, the youngest eligible woman from the household was chosen to participate. From 698 women who were invited to participate in the study, 671 consented and were recruited. Figure A.3 presents the map of our intervention site and study sample.

# **2.2 Experimental Design**

Figure 1 presents our experimental design. The experiment consisted of a baseline survey, followed by randomization of women into one of three intervention arms, a 10-month long intervention, and an endline survey. All communication with the study sample occurred in Hindi, the local language. The baseline survey was administered by female enumerators during July and August 2018 to 671 women. To address information gaps on FP among our sample women, a brochure on modern FP methods and the benefits of healthy timing and spacing of births was given to all sample women at the conclusion of the baseline survey (Figure A.4).

Soon after completion of the baseline survey, we conducted individual-level randomization to assign 350 women to the control group, 156 women to the Own voucher group, and 165 women to the BAF voucher group. Following Bruhn and McKenzie (2009), we implemented a stratified randomization protocol by balancing treatment assignment according to the following baseline characteristics of a woman: village of residence, current use of FP, years of schooling, desire for another child, and the number of peers mentioned by her as part of our social networks module. Tables 1 and A.1 show that treatment assignment was balanced across a range of baseline characteristics of the woman including her age, religion, number of children, whether she had at least one son, marital duration, co-residence with the mother-inlaw, number of close peers in the village, contraceptive use, beliefs about her mother-in-law’s opposition to FP use, household asset score,<sup>16</sup> and whether her last visit to an FP clinic was with her husband or mother-in-law.<sup>17</sup> We observe some differences across groups in the mo-

> 15We excluded married women who had not begun childbearing from our study due to the presence of cultural norms that pressurize newly married couples to prove their fertility as soon as possible after marriage before considering FP (Jejeebhoy et al., 2014).

> 16We construct the household asset score using a principal component analysis with the following variables: source of drinking water, type of toilet facility, floor material, roof material, exterior wall material, type of fuel used for cooking, ownership of animals, number of rooms in the household used to sleep.

> 17 Randomization was also balanced across several other variables, such as the Below Poverty Line (BPL) status of and the amount of land owned by the household, whether the woman gave birth last year, her husband’s migration status, the woman’s decision-making ability, the distance from a woman’s home to the ADC and to the closest clinic located in the study area.

6