experiencing stock outs sometimes while 18 and 15 percent reported experiencing them frequently and very frequently respectively. When asked about the reason for the stock outs, 69 percent of the facilities mentioned lack of PBF funds as the main reason. Thirty percent stated issues with procurement or the suppliers as the main reason.

Out of the 956 women in the treatment arm who report receiving antenatal care in the first four months of their pregnancy, only 19 percent reported also receiving gifts. Twelve percent reported receiving a gift after delivering in a health facility and 7 percent reported receiving the in-kind transfers after receiving postnatal care within ten days after delivery. For each of these criteria, about 3 percent of the eligible women did not receive the gifts but were promised to receive them at a later stage. The rates of women meeting the eligibility criteria in the control group and receiving gifts from the health facilities where they received care are, 11, 4, and 1 percent for timely antenatal care, in-facility delivery and timely postnatal care, respectively. In all cases, the differences between the groups are statistically significant at the 1 percent level.

The follow-up survey also collected data on the women who were interviewed in the baseline survey. While these data are not used in the analysis presented in this paper, they enable us to calculate the rate of gift receipt for the different program implementation years, as more than half of the baseline sample had additional births since the baseline survey. The rates are highest for 2011 and gradually decrease in 2012 and 2013. For timely antenatal consultation, the rate of eligible women who received gifts is above 30 percent. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the estimate for 2011 is noisy, as few women had births two years in a row. In addition, the reporting of gifts received two years prior to the survey might be lower because of recall issues.

# Results

## **i. Analysis of the CPBF Impact Evaluation Data**

Given the random allocation of the intervention and the balance between treatment and control groups, the effect of the in-kind transfers can be estimated by simply regressing outcomes from the follow-up survey on an indicator for being from a treatment sector. Taking into account the sampling strategy, standard errors are clustered at the sector level. Table 3 presents regression results of this simple specification. The demand-side intervention has increased the rate of women receiving first antenatal consultation within the first four months of their pregnancy by about 7.7 percentage points from 73.1 percent among the control group to 80.8 percent among the treatment group. The effect is statistically significant at the 1% level. The rate of women who received postnatal care within ten days after delivery has increased by 8.6 percentage points from 12.2 percent among the control group to 20.8 percent among the treatment group. Also this effect is significant at the 1% level. No statistically significant impact is detected on in-facility deliveries. The rate of such deliveries is 95 percent in the control group and 94 percent in the treatment group.

Timely antenatal and postnatal care, as well as in-facility deliveries, were directly incentivized by the program. Table 3 shows also results of the impact of the intervention on related but non-targeted outcomes. Although it increased the rate of women who commenced their antenatal care early, the 8