column 1 presents results from analysis of the number of nurses present at the health facility on the day of data collection. There was a small and non-significant increase in the number of nurses present over the study period. The increase in the number of nurses in the PBF group was greater than in the full control group (p-value = 0.01). Adding the coefficient on the interaction term of PBF and post to the coefficient on the post indicator (0.191+1.222=1.413) indicates that there was an average increase of almost 1.5 nurses present in PBF facilities over the study period. The coefficients on the two other treatment groups – additional financing and additional supervision – were not statistically significant; however, there was a larger increase in the full PBF group compared to the change in the additional supervision group.

DRUGS AND EQUIPMENT IN THE HEALTH FACILITY A composite indicator was created to assess any impact on the availability of basic clinical equipment. The indicator included information on the presence of a clock, a child weighing scale, height measure, tape measure, adult weighing scale, blood pressure instrument, thermometer, stethoscope, fetoscope, otoscope, flashlight, stretcher, and wheelchair. Scores indicate the proportion of these thirteen pieces of equipment that was available at a given facility and range from 0 to 1. <mark>Point estimates indicate the estimated impact on this score.</mark> Both the PBF and the additional financing intervention arms resulted in large and statistically significant improvements in the availability of equipment. Facilities in the PBF arm had a 10.0 percentage point increase over that seen in the control (p<0.05), while those in the additional financing arm had an increase of 12.5 percentage points over the control (p < 0.01). This increase was not seen in the improved supervision arm; while the point estimate was positive, it was small and not statistically significant. There was no measurable difference in the impacts of the PBF and financing only arms, but there was statistically significant difference between the PBF intervention and improved supervision (p<0.05) (Table 18, column 2).

Table 18, column 3 <mark>shows the interventions’ impact on the availability of vaccination equipment, which includes a thermometer for the vaccine fridge, a cold box or vaccine carrier, a deep freezer, a refrigerator and ice packs. There is no evidence of a differential impact in any of the three arms. The point estimates are all very small, with large standard errors.</mark> Table 18, column 4 shows the impact on delivery equipment, which includes the following: delivery bed, partograph, delivery light, aspirator, newborn resuscitation bag, newborn eye drops or ointment, scissors, umbilical cord clamp or sterile tape/tie, suturing material, examination gloves, sterile cotton gauze, hand soap or detergent, hand scrubbing brush, sterile tray, plastic container with plastic liner for the placenta, plastic container with a plastic liner for medical waste, adult stethoscope, Pinard or fetal stethoscope, blood pressure instrument, kidney basin, protective apron and plastic draw sheet, baby scale, needle holder, syringes and disposable needles, 16- or 18-guage needles, speculum, clamps, hand or foot operated suction pump, vacuum extractor, and a uterine curette. Both the PBF and the additional financing interventions had large and positive impacts on the availability of delivery equipment. Scores in the PBF arm improved by 21 percentage points more than did those in the control and those in the additional financing arm increased by 18.9 percentage points relative to the control. While there was a positive point estimate on the impact of the improved supervision intervention group, the difference (estimated at 8.2 percentage points) does not meet the cut-off for statistical significance. The impacts of the 24