{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["report2"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":1,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"report2","index":0,"n_rows":28,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":28,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,2,0,3],[0,4,0,5],[1,2,1,3],[1,4,1,5],[2,2,2,3],[2,4,2,5],[3,2,3,3],[4,2,4,3],[7,2,7,3],[8,2,8,3],[9,2,9,3],[10,2,10,3],[11,2,11,3],[13,2,13,3],[14,2,14,3],[18,2,18,3]],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
[null,"1.","Record Nr.",null,"UNINA9910965208303321"]
[null,null,"Autore",null,"Rawlings Laura <1964->"]
[null,null,"Titolo",null,"Evaluating social funds : a cross-country analysis of community interventions / / Laura Rawlings, Lynne Sherburne-Benz, Julie Van Domelen"]
[null,null,"Pubbl/distr/stampa",null,"Washington, DC, : World Bank, 2004"]
[null,null,"ISBN",null,"1-280-09817-1"]
[{"$nulls":4},"9786610098170"]
[{"$nulls":4},"0-585-49075-9"]
[null,null,"Edizione",null,"[1st ed.]"]
[null,null,"Descrizione fisica",null,"xxvii, 208 pages : illustrations ; ; 24 cm"]
[null,null,"Collana",null,"World Bank regional and sectoral study"]
[null,null,"Disciplina",null,"307.1/4/091724"]
[null,null,"Soggetti",null,"Community development - Developing countries - Evaluation"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Economic assistance, Domestic - Developing countries - Evaluation"]
[null,null,"Lingua di pubblicazione",null,"Inglese"]
[null,null,"Formato",null,"Materiale a stampa"]
[null,null,null,"Livello bibliografico","Monografia"]
[null,null,null,"Note generali","Bibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph"]
[null,null,null,"Nota di bibliografia","Includes bibliographical references."]
[null,null,"Nota di contenuto",null,"Intro -- Contents -- Abbreviations and Data Note -- Acknowledgments -- Executive Summary -- Introduction -- Social Funds: An Innovative, Community-Based Tool -- Objectives of the Study -- Context of the Research -- Outline of the Report -- 1. Overview of Social Funds -- Definitions and Characteristics -- General Debates about the Model -- Description of the Six Case Study Social Funds -- The Project Cycle and Implementation Arrangements -- Capacity Building and Coordination with Stakeholders -- Findings from Earlier Studies -- Measuring Workers' Gains -- Expanding Access to Services -- Reaching the Poor -- 2. Methodology -- Overall Approach to Study Questions -- Research Questions -- Evaluation Methodology -- Evaluating Poverty Targeting -- Evaluating Facilities -- Evaluating Household Impact -- Approaches to Impact Evaluation in the Country Case Studies -- Cost Study Methodology -- Analysis of Participation, Perceptions, and Priorities -- Data Sources and Sample Sizes -- Data Sources -- Sample Size and Design -- Costs and Time Frame -- Implications -- Lessons on Methodology -- Operational Recommendations for Evaluation -- 3. Performance in Poverty Targeting -- Research Focus -- Geographic Targeting Performance -- Cumulative Results -- Recent Trends -- Variation in Spending among Districts or Municipalities -- Household Targeting Performance -- Results Based on Poverty Lines -- Results Based on Income or Consumption Deciles -- Results by Type of Project "]
[{"$nulls":4},"-- Comparison of Targeting by Social Fund and Other Programs -- Geographic Targeting -- Household Targeting -- Targeting within Districts -- Analysis of Potential versus Actual Beneficiaries -- Implications -- 4. Education -- Research Focus -- Impact on Infrastructure -- Impact on the Availability of Equipment, Furniture, and Textbooks -- Impact on Staffing, School Size, and Student-Teacher Ratios."]
[{"$nulls":4},"Number of Students -- Student-Teacher Ratios -- Impact on Educational Outcomes -- Enrollment Rates -- Educational Attainment -- Sustainability -- Implications -- 5. Health -- Research Focus -- Impact on Infrastructure -- Impact on Availability of Key Inputs -- Medical Equipment and Furniture -- Access to Essential Medicines and Supplies -- Staffing -- Impact on Health Outcomes -- Utilization Rates -- Health Outcomes -- Sustainability -- Implications -- 6. Water and Sanitation -- Research Focus -- Water Systems -- Quality and Utilization -- Physical and Operational Sustainability -- Household-Level Impacts -- Sewerage Systems -- Supply and Utilization -- Physical and Operational Sustainability -- Household-Level Impacts -- Latrines -- Quality and Utilization -- Household-Level Impacts -- Implications -- Water Systems -- Sewerage Systems -- Latrines -- 7. Community Dynamics -- Research Focus -- Response to Community Priorities -- How Projects Are Identified -- Findings -- Participation throughout the Project Cycle -- Project Identification -- Design -- Implementation -- Operation and Maintenance -- Does Participation Matter? -- Implications -- 8. Cost Analysis of Social Funds -- Research Focus -- Complications and Caveats -- Comparators -- Education -- Health -- Water and Sanitation -- Water Supply Systems -- Sewerage and Latrines -- Program Efficiency -- Overhead Expenditures -- Speed of Execution -- Leveraging of Community Resources -- Implications -- 9. Conclusions -- General Findings -- Key Design Issues for Social Funds -- Improving Poverty Targeting -- Improving the Impact -- Enhancing Sustainability -- Increasing Cost-Efficiency -- Ensuring Relevance to Community Needs and Active Engagement of Citizens -- Key Issues for Impact Evaluation -- Implications for the Role of Social Funds within Poverty Reduction Strategies."]
[{"$nulls":4},"Appendix: Methodology for Education, Health, and Water and Sanitation Impact Evaluations -- Bibliography -- Tables -- 1.1 Basic Information on the Case Study Social Funds -- 2.1 Impact Evaluation Designs Applied in the Case Study Countries -- 2.2 Cost Study Sample Frames and Methodologies -- 2.3 Data Sources Used in the Country Case Studies -- 2.4 Household and Facility Sample Sizes Used for Targeting and Impact Evaluation, Treatment and Comparator Groups Combined -- 2.5 Estimated Costs of Impact Evaluations and Targeting Analyses -- 3.1 Units Used in Analysis of Geographic Targeting -- 3.2 Cumulative Geographic Distribution of Social Fund Resources by Population Decile -- 3.3 Distribution of Social Fund Beneficiaries by Population Decile -- 3.4 Distribution of Social Fund Beneficiaries by Population Decile and Type of Project, Honduras and Nicaragua -- 3.5 Distribution of Social Fund and Municipal Expenditures among Municipalities Ranked by Poverty, Bolivia -- 3.6 Distribution of Social Program Benefits among Households by Decile, Armenia, 1998 -- 3.7 Distribution of Education and Health Benefits by Quintile, Nicaragua, 1998 -- 4.1 Education Project Component of Total Social Fund Investment -- 4.2 Physical Condition of Social Fund and Non-Social Fund Schools, Case Study Countries in Latin America -- 4.3 Access to Safe Water and to Electricity in Social Fund and Non-Social Fund Schools -- 4.4 Students per Desk, Bolivia, Honduras, and Zambia -- 4.5 Availability of School Furniture, Zambia -- 4.6 Change in School "]
[{"$nulls":4},"Size -- 4.7 Student-Teacher Ratios -- 4.8 Net Primary Enrollment Rates -- 5.1 Health Project Component of Total Social Fund Investment -- 5.2 Health Facilities in Adequate or Better Condition -- 5.3 Health Facilities' Access to Utilities -- 5.4 Health Facilities' Access to Essential Medicines and Supplies."]
[{"$nulls":4},"5.5 Staffing of Health Facilities, 1993 and 1997-98 -- 5.6 Impact of Social Fund Investment on Household Utilization of Health Facilities, 1998 -- 5.7 Average Daily Consultations in Urban and Rural Health Posts, Honduras, 1997 -- 5.8 Health Facility Utilization Overall and by Female Patients, Nicaragua, 1993 and 1997 -- 5.9 Impact of Social Fund Investments in Health Centers on Infant and Under-Five Mortality, Bolivia, 1993-97 -- 5.10 Indicators of Sustainability of Health Facilities -- 5.11 Maintenance of Health Facilities, Nicaragua -- 6.1 Quality of Water Systems, Honduras, 1999 -- 6.2 Impact of Social Fund Water Investments on Under-Five Mortality, Bolivia, 1993-97 -- 6.3 Impact of Social Fund Water Investments on Health Outcomes and Household Access to Water, Nicaragua -- 6.4 Quality of Sewerage Systems, Honduras, 1999 -- 6.5 Quality of Latrines, Honduras, 1999 -- 7.1 Community Investment Priorities and Choices, by Project Type, Honduras -- 7.2 Share of Beneficiary Households Consulted about Social Fund and Other Projects, Honduras -- 7.3 Beneficiary Households Participating in Project Execution, Honduras -- 8.1 Glossary of Social Funds and Comparator Programs Used in the Cost Analysis -- 8.2 Unit Costs in School Infrastructure Projects -- 8.3 Costs of Different Approaches to Constructing School Infrasturcture, Zambia -- 8.4 Unit Costs in Health Center Investment Projects -- 8.5 Unit Costs in Water Infrastucture Projects -- 8.6 Unit Costs in Sanitation Projects -- 8.7 Annual Overhead Expenditures as a Share of Total Program Cost, by Type of Implementing Program -- 8.8 Local Contributions as a Share of Direct Costs in Social Fund Projects -- 8.9 Local Contributions as a Share of Direct Costs in Social Fund and Other Projects, Nicaragua and Peru -- A.1 Education Evaluation: Household and Facilities Sample Sizes by Country."]
[{"$nulls":4},"A.2 Health Evaluation: Household and Facilities Sample Sizes by Country -- A.3 Water and Sanitation Evaluation: Household and Facilities Survey Sample Sizes by Country and Subsector -- Boxes -- 1 Country Case Evaluation Studies -- 2.1 Impact Evaluation Methodologies -- 2.2 Qualitative Assessments Reviewed -- 3.1 Comparing Targeting Results in Honduras Using Different Measures -- 3.2 Targeting of Social Funds to the Poor and the Poorest -- 4.1 A Parent Speaks about the Importance of Social Fund Investments in School Infrastructure -- 4.2 Poverty and Gender Aspects of the Impacts of Social Fund Investments in Education in Nicaragua -- 4.3 Indigenous Communities and Social Funds: Lessons from Education Investments in Peru -- 4.4 Comment on the Social Fund's School Investments, Honduras -- 4.5 Infrastructure Inputs and Academic Achievement in Developing Countries -- 5.1 Evidence on Supply-Side Factors Affecting Utilization of Health Care -- 5.2 Beneficiaries of Social Fund Health Posts Speak Out -- 5.3 Evidence on Supply-Side Factors Affecting Health Outcomes -- 6.1 Comparing the Sustainability of Water Systems across Countries -- 6.2 International Evidence on the Health Effects of Sewerage Investments -- 6.3 Concrete Benefits from Sanitation Projects, Honduras -- 7.1 Selection of Lower-Priority Projects: Two Cases in Honduras -- 7.2 On the Responsiveness of Local Governments in Armenia -- 7.3 The Importance of Ownership: Comments from Honduras and Zambia -- 7.4 Participation in Maintenance in Nicaragua -- 7.5 Participation and Determinants of Success in Social Fund Projects in Peru -- 8.1 Costs of Rural Water Systems in Three Andean Countries "]
[{"$nulls":4},"-- 9.1 The Contribution of Impact Evaluation to Program Design: Honduras and Nicaragua -- Figures -- 3.1 Cumulative Geographic Distribution of Social Fund Resources by Municipal or District Poverty Decile."]
[{"$nulls":4},"3.2 Change in Geographic Targeting over Time."]
[null,null,null,"Sommario/riassunto","The social fund has become one of the main tools of community-led poverty reduction. A departure from traditional central government-led approaches to development, social funds encourage communities and local institutions to take the lead in identifying, generally in social infrastructure such as schools and health clinics.; Drawing on a range of methodologies - from randomized control designs to propensity score matching - this study examines the welfare impact of social fund investments in education, health and water and sanitation across six countries. The study, through comparison with the counterfactual, measures the net effect of social fund investments beyond existing levels of service provision in comparator communities, which often received investment from non-governmental organizations, public sector agencies other than social funds, or the private sector. The results establish a benchmark against which the welfare impact of alternative approaches can and should be evaluated.; The study also marks the first cross-country incidence analysis of social fund beneficiaries. Using household survey data, it compares the poverty levels of social fund beneficiaries with national poverty levels."]