eligible for survey inclusion if: (a) they had been included in the PSNP; or (b) if they were not included in the PSNP but were considered poor.<sup>3</sup> From this list, we randomly selected five PSNP and five non-PSNP households. Our March 2019 sample included 2,626 households with a young child aged 0-24 months, of which 2,551<sup>4</sup> were successfully re-interviewed in August 2019 (Berhane et al., 2020).<sup>5</sup> In June 2020, we conducted a phone survey of these households. As part of the 2019 surveys, we collected information on households’ ownership of mobile phones, their phone numbers and permission to contact them by phone if needed. About 54 percent (1387/2551) of the August 2019 sample had access to a phone. In addition, members of our 2019 survey teams were able to help us locate additional households who now have mobile phones. Using this information, we interviewed 1,497 (about 59 percent) of the 2,551 households who took part in the August 2019 survey. As was the case in the 2019 surveys, the primary respondent was the mother of the preschool child. Several methods were deployed by the survey team to minimize non-response, including using built-in out-of-network reminders, allowing extended appointments, and making several call attempts at different hours of the day. On average, each interview required about two call attempts to succeed, about 53 percent were reached at first attempt, and about 3 percent of the interviews needed a minimum of 7 (and a maximum of 17) call attempts to succeed.<sup>6</sup> An obvious concern with this approach is that the phone sample will differ in systematic ways from the original 2019 sample, not least because ownership of mobile phones is correlated with wealth in this population (see Table 1). We account for this in the following way. Our 2019 survey contained a rich set of observable characteristics that we can use to predict the probability of response to our phone survey (see Table 1) using a logit model (see Table A1). We then

> 3 Poverty status was determined using a subjective poverty measure in which households were asked to rank themselves on a seven rung poverty ladder. The first rung represented the very poorest households in the village and the seventh rung, the very richest households in the village. Our previous work in Ethiopia shows that this poverty ladder is well correlated with other (more objective) welfare measures: durable asset levels, livestock holdings and self-reported food security. Non-PSNP households were chosen from the bottom four rungs of the ranking. Please see Berhane et al. (2020) for detailed discussion about this selection process.

> 4 This is an attrition of 2.9 percent largely related to two reasons: absence of households at home in the rainy season and some areas were inaccessible because of ongoing civil unrest.

> 5 The March 2019 sample considered 0-24 months old children. In June 2020, our children sample became 13 months older. In addition, a new child has been born to 15 percent of the mothers in our sample. Given the interest in younger children, whenever possible, we have replaced the old index child by the young ones. Thus, our current child sample is composed of 0-36 months old.

> 6 The median interview time was 32 minutes.

5