scores or primary school enrollment rates in rural Bolivia, although they did raise enrollment rates in Nicaragua and Zambia. Similarly, spending on primary health centers reduced infant mortality in Bolivia, but had small or no discernible effects on health outcomes in other countries. And sanitation projects led to health gains in Peru and Bolivia but not in Honduras.

**<u>Table 2.  Measures of Inputs, Outputs, Outcomes, and Impacts</u>**

||**Inputs**|**Outputs**|**Outcomes**<br>**(short-term)**|**Impacts**<br>**(long-run)**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Education|Money<br># of individuals trained to teach|# of class rooms established<br># of beneficiaries<br># of nurseryclasses|<br># (percentage) of the<br>participants getting the<br>intervention|Illiteracy rate<br>Employment rate|
|Health|Renovation of health clinics<br># of health personal trained<br># of health awareness campaigns|# of beneficiaries<br># of health clinics renovated<br>as percentage of total<br>health clinics<br># of mothers that received<br>pre-natal care|<br>Rate of immunization<br>Under 5 mortality rate<br>Average expenditure on<br>medicine||
|Potable water|Length of pipe lines constructed /<br>rehabilitated<br># of elevated or ground tanks|# of household connected as<br>a % of total of household<br>in the community<br>Expenditure on water<br>procurement|<br> <br># under 5 mortality rate<br>Incidence of diarrhea<br>Incidence of illnesses due to<br>water related disease<br>Expenditure on medicine||
|Sewerage<br>connection|Length of sewerage network<br># of waste water treatment plant|# of household connected<br>Expenditure on sanitation/<br>septic tanks|Mortality<br>Morbidity<br>Diarrhea<br>Expenditure on health||
|Roads|Length of rural roads constructed/<br>rehabilitated|Transportation expenses<br>reduction<br>Mode of transport<br>Travel time to reach<br>clinic/school|Employment<br>Farm income/ non farm<br>income<br>Under 5 mortality<br>School enrolment rate||
|Microcredit|# of NGOs receiving loans from<br>the SFD<br>Amount of money received from<br>the SFD|Average amount loans<br>extended (received) by<br>SFD NGOs<br># of beneficiaries receiving<br>loans|Diversification of income<br>Average income<br>Employment level<br>Diversification of<br>employment|Poverty|

Where projects have no discernible overall impact, the explanation is typically that the money was poorly spent (e.g. on a shiny new school to replace an adequate older building, or on a road to nowhere), or crowded out existing services (e.g. a new health center might change where one goes for care, but may not raise the level of care appreciably).

The simplest approach to measuring the effects of a program is to compare the outcomes for those who were covered by the program with those who were not. Unfortunately, this does not work, because of the problem of endogenous program placement. For example, the rate of gastroenteritis is 6.9% in villages with an SFD health program but just 2.7% for communities without one; yet it would not be credible to claim that an SFD health program actually causes more gastroenteritis.

_Impact Evaluation: Egyptian Social Fund for Development_ _Version of June 29, 2009_ _Page 6 of 36_