|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
April 06, 2026 08:10 AM
|
After
August 21, 2026 10:16 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
May 01, 2026
|
After
June 15, 2026
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
We will aim to collect the following main categories of outcomes:
1. Household finances: digital financial inclusion, saving, borrowing, incoming transfers, loaning, outgoing transfers. On this topic, other related outcomes will be included to grasp the household’s support network, its participation in formal and informal sharing mechanisms as part of customs, the reasons behind the various reported transactions, as well as modality, amount, frequency, interest, etc.
2. Gendered outcomes such as intra-household decision-making dynamics.
3. Food security: e.g., Food Consumption Score, Food Insecurity Experience Scale, and Household Hunger Scale.
4. Social capital and trust: e.g., Subjectively Evaluated Resilience Score, trust in institutions, focusing on financial intermediaries.
5. Monitoring: how the ACL/SSN support is spent, the cost, safety, and ease of accessing the ACL/SSN support.
6. Phone usage: frequency, purpose, amounts for transactions, etc.
Additionally, we also aim to collect data on household durables and livestock as well as the gender, age, and education of beneficiaries to grasp heterogeneities in terms of the cash vs. mobile money comparison and explore whether this comparison yields different insights for different sub-groups of households, as defined by the above dimensions.
Finally, we plan to collect data on shocks to assess potential differences in household resilience when facing shocks in the cash vs. mobile money arms.
|
After
1. Primary outcomes collected to compile evidence on whether the distribution modalities were correctly rolled out:
a. Receipt of transfers
b. Cash receipt in the cash arm of the experiment
c. Mobile money (MoMo) receipt in the MoMo arm of the experiment
d. Phone receipt in the MoMo arm of the experiment
2. Primary outcomes collected to compile suggestive evidence of experimental success:
a. Phone use (last 7 days)
b. MoMo use (ever and last 30 days)
3. Primary outcomes collected to compile upstream evidence of differences between the two modalities:
a. Fees and cost of accessing transfers (South Sudanese Pounds SSP)
b. Time spent collecting cash (including walking to, waiting, and processing) (Minutes)
c. Amount received in the last 90 days as sharing and supporting (SSP)
d. Amount sent in the last 90 days to support others (SSP)
e. Amount received in the last 90 days as formal borrowing (e.g., VSLA; SSP)
f. Fearful of theft and/or harassment as they relate to the receipt of/accessing transfers (binary)
g. Capacity to meet urgent needs in the last 30 days (binary)
h. Capacity to obtain cash from transfers/programme participation when it was timely (binary)
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
We implement a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial in which approximately 126 villages are randomly assigned, in equal proportions, to receive either cash transfers or mobile money transfers. The village-level randomization reflects the operational scale of program delivery and mitigates concerns about within-community spillovers. Treatment effects are estimated by comparing mean outcomes across arms, with inference adjusted for intra-cluster correlation.
|
After
We initially planned to implement a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial in approximately 126 villages. Villages were randomly assigned, in equal proportions (and stratified at the payam level) to receive either cash transfers or mobile money transfers. The village-level randomization reflects the operational scale of program delivery and mitigates concerns about within-community spillovers. Treatment effects are to be estimated by comparing mean outcomes across arms, with inference adjusted for intra-cluster correlation.
As the mobile money scale-up depended heavily on the network operator, the RCT was ultimately implemented in the strata (payams) where the mobile money expansion was possible. Out of the initially planned sample, 5 strata were dropped because the network coverage proved insufficient for registration and the use of mobile money. As the treatment arm assignment was stratified at the payam level, the sample has remained balanced: 41 villages continuing to receive Cash and 41 villages switching to Mobile Money.
Data collection schedule: Ultra-brief baseline (less than 20 questions) in May 2026, follow-up round 1 in September 2026, and follow-up round 2 in December 2026.
Estimation specifications:
Y = cst + a MoMo + d Strata + e (round-based)
Y = cst + a MoMo + b Round2 + c MoMo x Round2 + d Strata + f Strata x Round2 + e (pooled)
Alternative specification where baseline values of Y are available (e.g., HHS, phone use, MoMo use):
Y = cst + a MoMo + b Round2 + c MoMo x Round2 + d Strata + f Strata x Round2 + g BaseChar + e
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
Our research will include approximately 126 clusters. The clusters are villages across three counties and one municipality in two different states in South Sudan. The clustered randomization was stratified at the payam level, which is two levels above the village and one level below the county.
|
After
Our research will include approximately 82 clusters. The clusters are villages across three counties and one municipality in two different states in South Sudan. The clustered randomization was stratified at the payam level, which is two levels above the village and one level below the county.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
There will be two waves of data collection with a targeted average of 15 surveys per village in each round, which leads to a total of approximately 3,750 household observations.
|
After
There will be two waves of data collection with a targeted number of 15-20 surveys per village in each round, which leads to a total of approximately 1,650 household observations per round.
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
The sample will be divided equally between the two arms: approximately 63 villages will receive their support as cash-in-hand, and 63 villages will switch to mobile money.
|
After
The sample will be divided equally between the two arms: approximately 41 villages will receive their support as cash-in-hand, and 41 villages will switch to mobile money.
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
The minimum detectable effect is ten percent (10% = 0.1) increase in individual phone usage. (standard deviation: 0.49)
|
After
|
|
Field
Keyword(s)
|
Before
Behavior, Crime Violence And Conflict, Education, Finance, Gender, Post Conflict, Welfare
|
After
Behavior, Finance, Post Conflict, Welfare
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
We are also aiming for a staggered approach to giving out phones to beneficiaries. Initially, it is only the mobile money group who will be prioritized to receive a phone, we then collect the first wave of data and estimate the differential impact of the mobile money package (which includes a phone) as compared to cash. Then, the aim is to distribute phones to the cash arm as well, collect the second wave of data, and thus disentangle the mobile money effect from the phone effect.
|
After
|
|
Field
Did you obtain IRB approval for this study?
|
Before
No
|
After
Yes
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
|
After
4. Other exploratory outcomes:
a. # of trips to cash out transfers
b. # of trips to the market (last 30 days) and average amount spent on most recent trips
c. Speed of spending transfers
d. Transfer spending preferences (SSP amount for various categories)
e. Yes/No to saving and amount saved (last 90 days)
f. Food security as measured by FIES and HHS (last 30 days)
g. Female decision power (e.g., her opinion matters at least equally with that of male household members on 4 broad household decision matters: food, non-food, transfer use, and expenses related to children)
h. Trust in various institutions: WFP and its cooperating NGOs, mobile service providers and mobile money, financial intermediaries, and one’s community
i. Feelings of safety as they relate to the receipt of/accessing transfers (binary for any concerns, sum of concerns such as theft, harassment, long queues)
j. PHQ4 (last 14 days)
5. Furthermore, we will assess (where relevant):
a. Whether the gender, educational level or literacy of the recipient/household head are sources of impact heterogeneity
b. Whether having a migrant in the family is a source of impact heterogeneity
c. Whether MoMo knowledge/understanding and openness towards the technology (i.e., willingness to receive a debt payment via MoMo) mediates MoMo use
d. Whether experiencing shocks (and their nature) in the last 90 days is a source of heterogeneity explaining impact differentials, especially as they regard sharing practices, borrowing, and PHQ4
|