(p<0.05)). Effects were even stronger in the additional financing group. Health workers at facilities receiving additional financing were 13.4 percentage points more likely to be satisfied with their salary (p< 0.10) and 28.7 percentage points more likely to be satisfied with benefits (p<0.01). These effects are not seen in the improved supervision arm. While the point estimates associated with supervision are positive, they are relatively small and are not statistically significant. Satisfaction with living accommodations improved somewhat in all three groups, with point estimates suggesting that health workers were 10 to 16 percentage points more likely to express satisfaction after the pilot. However, these impacts are not statistically significant in any of the three groups.

The point estimates of PBF’s impact on opportunities to discuss issues with supervisors, supervisors’ recognition of good work, opportunities to be rewarded for hard work, and opportunities for promotion were all negative (β=-0.08, -0.04, -0.02 and -0.11, respectively), although none were statistically significant (Table 17, columns 4 – 7). The estimated impact of the improved supervision arm was also generally negative and, with a point estimate of -25.1 percentage points, the impact of the improved supervision on opportunities for promotion was statistically significant (p<0.05). The estimated impact of the financing arm was positive, but was only statistically significant for the opportunity to be rewarded for hard work. The improvement in the financing arm was greater than the change in the in the PBF group for this outcome, and for opportunities for promotion.

As shown in Table 17, the PBF intervention had a small but negative estimated impact on reported opportunities to upgrade skills through training and a small but positive estimated impact on reported opportunities to use skills on the job (neither measure met statistical significance). Point estimates for both measures were positive in the additional financing arm, and the financing appears to have positively impacted satisfaction with opportunities to use skills on the job (β <mark>=0.194, p< 0.10).</mark> The point estimates associated with the improved supervision arm to either use or upgrade skills did not meet the 10 percent cut-off for statistical significance.

Satisfaction with safety and security in the community and with available schooling for children were unchanged by the interventions. The point estimate in the PBF group was large at 13.9 percentage points, but did not reach statistical significance. The point estimates for the other two treatment groups were small and non-significant (Table 17, columns 10 & 11).

Health workers were also asked about their satisfaction with their jobs, overall. While all three interventions had positive point estimates, none met the 10 percent cut-off for statistical significance. Relative to the pure control, the largest impact was seen in the PBF arm, with health workers 10.5 percent more likely to express satisfaction, followed by the supervision only group (5.3 percent more likely to express satisfaction), followed by the financing only group (4.8 percent more likely) (Table 17, column 12).

# HEALTH WORKER AVAILABILITY IN THE HEALTH FACILITY

The facility survey asked the head of the health facility, or the most informed staff member, to list the names of the all of the health workers employed at the health facility. This information was recorded onto the staff roster. The staff roster also collected information on the post occupied by each health worker and on whether they were present on the day of data collection. Table 18, 23