and the smell of the clinic – remained significantly better in the treatment group also in the long run (column iv).<sup>17</sup> The effect is substantial, with the mean treatment facility having a 0.5 standard deviation higher score compared to the average control facility. There is also a significant decrease in the probability of drug stock-outs in the long run, column (v), although there is no systematic difference in the supply of drugs between treatment and control groups.<sup>18</sup> Table 9 focuses on the extent to which clinical guidelines for the examination of patients were followed. We collected detailed data on antenatal and postnatal care. Four years after the initial intervention, health workers in the treatment communities appear to provide more effort, or better quality, in their interactions with pregnant women and infants. During antenatal care visits, pregnant women were more likely to be examined by a midwife; to have their weight taken; to have a blood sample taken; to have the fetus checked; and to receive information about pregnancy complications. Newborn children were also more likely to be checked at the facility in the first two months after delivery. For clinical guidelines that are seldom followed in the control group – checking the newborn in the first two months after delivery (a 24 percent increase in the treatment compared to the control group) and measuring weight and taking blood samples of pregnant women (a 22 percent increase in the treatment compared to the control group) – the treatment effects are substantial.

Table 10 includes results on health education on three of the most prevalent diseases in Uganda: HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Column (i) shows, not surprisingly given the mean in the control group of 0.99, that there is no impact on whether household members had heard of AIDS. But the intervention decreased the probability that the household members expressed stigmatization about AIDS (as measured by agreeing with the statement that people living with AIDS should be ashamed of themselves), increased the knowledge that tuberculosis is spread through the air, and increased the probability that children were sleeping under a treated mosquito net.

Table 11 reports the impact on immunization by children’s age group.<sup>19</sup> Two results stand out from the table. First, while the point estimates are positive, the treatment effects are small (between 3%-6%) and insignificantly different from zero. Second, coverage in the control group varies between 78%-94%, which is a doubling of the immunization rates since 2005. As almost nine out of ten children received immunizations according to the recommended immunization

> 17The enumerators visually checked the condition of the health clinics; i.e. whether floors and walls were clean, the condition of the furniture and the smell of the facility. From these data, we constructed a summary indicator using a principal components analysis. The variable general condition of the clinic is the standardized (using control group mean and standard deviation) first component.

> 18See section 6.3.

> 19For each age group, we use information on how many times (doses) in total each child has received of polio, DPT, BCG, and measles vaccines and vitamin A supplements. On the basis of the recommended immunization plan, we create indicator variables taking the value of 1 if child i of cohort (age) _j_ had received the required dose(s) of measles, DPT, BCG, and polio vaccines, respectively, and 0 otherwise. We then estimate equation (3), for each age group, and calculate average standardized effects.

14