The impact of eligibility explanations on satisfaction with cash transfer programs

The intervention is the delivery of information about eligibility criteria for the cash transfer program. The information will be delivered after eligible households have been (1) visited by a GiveDirectly field officer to collect enrollment details and (2) provided with their first of two monthly cash transfers by GiveDirectly. Explanations will be delivered to both eligible and ineligible households in beneficiary villages. The randomization is individual-level, with a 2x2 design, so there are four versions of the intervention:

Phone vs. text:
Phone call: The phone call is an outbound call from a GiveDirectly field officer to the phone number collected at enrollment (for eligible households) or provided by village leaders (for ineligible households)
Text message: The text message is an outbound message from GiveDirectly to the phone number collected at enrollment (for eligible households) or provided by village leaders (for ineligible households)

Content variants:
Less information: The “less information” version is a short script/message informing the household that they are (or are not) eligible for the GiveDirectly program, and stating that the households eligible for the program were the ones identified to be poorest in the community.
More information: The “more information” version is a longer script/message informing the household that they are (or are not) eligible for the GiveDirectly program, stating that the households eligible for the program were the ones identified to be poorest in the community, and providing some of the criteria used for identifying whether a household is poor, such as the floor material of the household, the level of education of household members, and the primary fuel used for cooking.

666 households will be in the control group. 333 households will be in each of the four treatment arms (phone x less information, phone x more information, text x less information, text x more information).

2026-06-24

2026-08-31

The primary outcomes are:
Understanding of eligibility criteria
Satisfaction with program
Perceptions of fairness and accuracy of targeting
Perceived dignity
Social cohesion in community

All five of the primary outcomes are constructed, as follows:
Understanding of eligibility criteria: This outcome will be constructed in two versions.
Using the question: “To what extent do you agree with the following statement: I know how GiveDirectly decided which households in my community would receive a cash transfer and which would not. ?” (-1 = Disagree, 0 = Neither agree nor disagree, 1 = Agree)
Using the open ended question “What were the eligibility criteria to receive a cash transfer from GiveDirectly?”, and using either AI or human annotators to rank answers on a scale of 0-1 for consistency with the actual eligibility criteria.
Satisfaction: This outcome will be an index constructed from two variables, normalized to a 0-1 scale and equally weighted:
“To what extent are you satisfied with the process used to identify program beneficiaries?” (0 = unsatisfied, 0.5 = neither satisfied nor unsatisfied, 1 = satisfied)
“If there was a similar program, would you like GiveDirectly to use the same approach to identify program beneficiaries?” (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Perception of fairness and accuracy of targeting: This outcome will be an index constructed from three variables, normalized to a 0-1 scale and equally weighted:
“In your opinion, was the process to receive a cash transfer fair?” (0 = no, 1 = yes)
“Were any nonpoor households included in the program?” (0 = no, 0.5 = yes, a few, 1 = yes, many)
“Were any poor households excluded from the program?” (0 = no, 0.5 = yes, a few, 1 = yes, many)
Dignity: This outcome will be an index constructed from five variables, normalized to a 0-1 scale and equally weighted. These questions are from the five-item dignity scale proposed by Wein et al. (2022).
“To what extent do you agree with the following statement: GiveDirectly treated me with dignity.” (-1 = disagree, 0 = neither agree nor disagree, 1 = agree)
“To what extent do you agree with the following statement: The representatives from GiveDirectly listened to my requests.” (-1 = disagree, 0 = neither agree nor disagree, 1 = agree)
“To what extent do you agree with the following statement: I felt respected by GiveDirectly.” (-1 = disagree, 0 = neither agree nor disagree, 1 = agree)
“To what extent do you agree with the following statement: I felt valued by GiveDirectly.” (-1 = disagree, 0 = neither agree nor disagree, 1 = agree)
“To what extent do you agree with the following statement: I felt supported by GiveDirectly.” (-1 = disagree, 0 = neither agree nor disagree, 1 = agree)
Social cohesion: This outcome will be an index constructed from six variables, normalized to a 0-1 scale and equally weighted.
“Please tell me the degree to which you agree with the following statement: The introduction of cash transfer created tensions between households in my community who will receive money and households in my community who will not receive money.” (-1 = disagree, 0 = neither agree nor disagree, 1 = agree)
“Please tell me the degree to which you agree with the following statement: The introduction of cash transfer created tensions between my household and households who [will/will not] receive money.” (-1 = disagree, 0 = neither agree nor disagree, 1 = agree)
“Would your household be able to lean on beneficiaries of GiveDirectly's cash transfer program during difficult times?” (0 = no, 1 = yes)
“Would your household be able to lean on non-beneficiaries of GiveDirectly's cash transfer program during difficult times?” (0 = no, 1 = yes)
“Please tell me the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: beneficiaries of GiveDirectly's cash transfer programs are likely to take advantage of you.” (0 = yes, 1 = no)
”Please tell me the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: non-beneficiaries of GiveDirectly's cash transfer programs are likely to take advantage of you.” (0 = yes, 1 = no)

There are three secondary outcomes which describe specific subsets of the social cohesion outcome:
Beneficiary-beneficiary social cohesion
Nonbeneficiary-nonbeneficiary social cohesion
Beneficiary-nonbeneficiary social cohesion: This outcome will be an index constructed from four variables, normalized to a 0-1 scale and equally weighted. It will be evaluated only for all households.

Beneficiary-beneficiary social cohesion: This outcome will be an index constructed from two variables, normalized to a 0-1 scale and equally weighted. It will be evaluated only for beneficiary households.
”Would your household be able to lean on beneficiaries of GiveDirectly's cash transfer program during difficult times?” (0 = no, 1 = yes)
”Please tell me the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: beneficiaries of GiveDirectly's cash transfer programs are likely to take advantage of you.” (0 = yes, 1 = no)
Nonbeneficiary-nonbeneficiary social cohesion: This outcome will be an index constructed from two variables, normalized to a 0-1 scale and equally weighted. It will be evaluated only for non-beneficiary households.
”Would your household be able to lean on non-beneficiaries of GiveDirectly's cash transfer program during difficult times?” (0 = no, 1 = yes)
”Please tell me the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: non-beneficiaries of GiveDirectly's cash transfer programs are likely to take advantage of you.” (0 = yes, 1 = no)
Beneficiary-nonbeneficiary social cohesion: This outcome will be an index constructed from four variables, normalized to a 0-1 scale and equally weighted. It will be evaluated only for all households.
”Please tell me the degree to which you agree with the following statement: The introduction of cash transfer created tensions between households in my community who will receive money and households in my community who will not receive money.” (-1 = disagree, 0 = neither agree nor disagree, 1 = agree)
”Please tell me the degree to which you agree with the following statement: The introduction of cash transfer created tensions between my household and households who [will/will not] receive money.” (-1 = disagree, 0 = neither agree nor disagree, 1 = agree)
”Would your household be able to lean on beneficiaries of GiveDirectly's cash transfer program during difficult times?” (0 = no, 1 = yes – only for non-beneficiaries) OR ”Would your household be able to lean on non-beneficiaries of GiveDirectly's cash transfer program during difficult times?” (0 = no, 1 = yes – only for beneficiaries)
”Please tell me the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: beneficiaries of GiveDirectly's cash transfer programs are likely to take advantage of you.” (0 = yes, 1 = no – only for non-beneficiaries) OR ”please tell me the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: non-beneficiaries of GiveDirectly's cash transfer programs are likely to take advantage of you.” (0 = yes, 1 = no – only for beneficiaries)

This RCT is embedded in a GiveDirectly cash transfer program conducted in Rwanda. Eligibility for the program is determined by whether the household is on a pre-identified list provided by the government (and eligibility for this list is based on a proxy means test). The activities in the program (flagged as GD operational activities or research activities) are as follows, in each eligible village:
[GD operational activity] GiveDirectly field officers visit the village and meet with community leaders to sensitize them to the program. During this meeting, they will also collect contact information (names and phone numbers) for households that will not be eligible (households not on the list provided by the government).
[GD operational activity] GiveDirectly field officers visit all households in the village that are on the eligibility list. They collect contact information (names and phone numbers) from these households as well as other information necessary for the standard GiveDirectly enrollment process. This door-to-door enrollment takes 2-5 days per village.
[GD operational activity] Within a week of enrollment, eligible households receive their first cash transfer.
[Research activity] Within a week of payments being delivered to eligible households, the explanation intervention occurs for all eligible or ineligible households with contact information collected by GiveDirectly (intervention details included in "intervention" above).
[Research activity] Within a week of the intervention, all eligible or ineligible households with contact information collected by GiveDirectly receive a phone call from a GiveDirectly field officer with the invitation to conduct a 30 minute phone survey about their impressions of the program. If respondents consent to participating, they proceed with the survey. Respondents will be surveyed in a random order.

Not available

Randomization done in office by a computer

Individual

No

2,000 households

2,000 households

666 control households, 333 households in each of the four treatment arms

Explanations Pre-Analysis Plan.pdf