tional choices, labor supply, income, social and economic networks of the household. The main survey modules were directed towards the main female in the household, who is the intended beneficiary in ultra-poor households. In cases where the main female was different from the household head, the head of the household was also surveyed for the business activities and land modules. To capture the social and economic networks of the household, respondents were asked to list households they interacted with for each of the surveyed activities. For example, in the business activities module, the respondent reported her main employer(s) for all income-generating activities she was involved in. If they reported a household within the same community as their own, the identity of this household was recorded (using the census listing).

To capture transfers exchanged between households, respondents were asked to report any transfers their household received and any transfers their household gave to others during the 12 months preceding each survey wave. For each transaction, they were asked the value of the transfer, whether it was in cash or in kind, the location of the sender/recipient,<sup>14</sup> and the identity of the sender/recipient. If the transfer source/recipient was a household residing in the same village as the respondent, their identity was recorded using the census listing. During the piloting of the baseline survey, it was observed that many respondents reported major transfer transactions, but left out smaller, in-kind transfers (which would only come up upon prompting by enumerators) that typically consisted of food items. In order to capture such transactions, respondents were asked if their household ever received food from other households and if so who the main sources/recipients of such transfers were. For every respondent, up to three sources and three recipients of food transfers were recorded.<sup>15</sup>

**Attrition:** Over the four years from baseline to endline, 13% of ultra-poor households and 15% of non-ultra-poor households attrited from the original sample. Table S1.1 in Appendix S1 tests for differential attrition among the ultra-poor in treatment and control communities. Two findings are of note. First, attrition rates are the same in treatment and control communities. Second, attrition is not differentially correlated with the interaction of treatment status and the baseline levels of key outcomes of interest: transfers received/given (neither on the extensive nor the intensive margin) or the likelihood to have received transfers from employers. Therefore, to ease com-

> 14Whether the sender/recipient of the transfer resided in the same village (as the respondent’s household), different village/town in the same district, different district or outside Bangladesh

> 15One distinction between the food transfer questions and the larger transfer transactions is the former captures not only the realization of transfers in a given period but also the most relevant potential transfer links. Therefore, by construction, the information on food transfers only captures the identity while the latter includes information on both the value of the transfers and the identity of the transfer sender/recipient. Whenever I estimate the effects on realized transfer transactions and their values, I use only the information from the latter. On the other hand, whenever I estimate the effects on network characteristics (such as the wealth status of transfer sources/recipients, or the reciprocity of connections), I use both types of transfer questions.

11