More “acceptable” shifts might also be achieved by making smaller, more regular transfers (conducive to small household purchases managed by women), rather than larger or lump sum transfers (Wasilkowska 2011). It should be noted, however, that the Kenya GiveDirectly study tested lump sum versus periodic transfers and found that the difference did not significantly affect the magnitude or impacts on IPV (Haushofer & Shapiro 2016). Understanding the importance of transfer size and other design features on intra-household dynamics is important, as economic security and poverty impacts are likely to be larger with increasing size of the transfer relative to pre-program household consumption, thus suggesting a potential program design trade-off. While empirical evidence is scarce and mixed in terms of the impact of recipient sex on economic and human capital outcomes of transfers, there is even less evidence for how different targeting schemes affect IPV outcomes (Yoong et al 2012).