Table 4

Impact of Treatment on IPV Channels at Four Years Post-program, North and South

	North				South				North vs. South
	Mean of Control	Cash	Cash+BCC	p-Value of Cash = Cash+BCC	Mean of Control	Food	Food+BCC	p-Value of Food = Food+BCC	p-Value of Cash = Food	p-Value of Cash+BCC = Food+BCC
Women’s economic resources	−0.07	0.10	0.19^**	0.20	0.06	−0.10	0.03	0.11	0.06^*	0.16
		(0.07)	(0.08)			(0.08)	(0.09)
Women’s agency	−0.18	0.19^**	0.25^***	0.54	0.17	−0.08	0.10	0.07^*	0.03^**	0.29
		(0.08)	(0.09)			(0.09)	(0.10)
Women’s social and community support	−0.04	0.08	0.25^**	0.14	0.04	−0.05	0.00	0.58	0.37	0.09^*
		(0.10)	(0.10)			(0.10)	(0.10)
Perceived social control	0.21	0.00	0.06	0.62	−0.20	0.02	0.23^*	0.19	0.93	0.33
		(0.12)	(0.11)			(0.17)	(0.13)
Men’s private cost	−0.08	0.04	0.12	0.33	0.08	−0.06	−0.12	0.52	0.41	0.05^*
		(0.09)	(0.09)			(0.08)	(0.08)
Household poverty	−0.35	0.20^**	0.39^***	0.03^**	0.33	−0.10	0.15	0.01^**	0.01^**	0.07^*
		(0.08)	(0.09)			(0.09)	(0.09)
Men’s emotional well-being	−0.06	0.18^*	0.27^**	0.42	0.06	−0.04	0.00	0.70	0.11	0.06^*
		(0.11)	(0.11)			(0.09)	(0.10)

Notes: OLS coefficients reported with standard errors in parentheses (clustered at the village level). N = 2416 (North = 1181; South = 1235) for all indexes except private costs and emotional well-being of men [both N = 1989 (North = 1012; South = 977)]. Channels are constructed following Kling et al. (2007) and standardized to the control group. As described in Section II.B, social and community support of women can also be conceptualized as cost of men; however, they were estimated separately here to allow for mutually exclusive channels. For the household poverty channel, higher values indicate lower poverty. Control variables include all baseline characteristics of the woman and her household shown in Table 2. ^*p < 0.1, ^**p < 0.05, ^***p < 0.01.