Table of contents for The Guatemala Community Day Care Program : an example of effective urban programming / Marie T. Ruel and Agnes Quisumbing, with Kelly Hallman and Benedicte de la Briere.

Bibliographic record and links to related information available from the Library of Congress catalog.

Note: Contents data are machine generated based on pre-publication provided by the publisher. Contents may have variations from the printed book or be incomplete or contain other coding.

Acknowledgments	vii
1. Introduction	1
Background and Rationale	1
Purpose of this Research Report	3
Structure of the Report	4
2. Women and Urban Poverty in Guatemala	5
Country Overview	5
Urbanization and Poverty at the Time of the Study	8
Urban Poverty and Women?s Livelihoods and Employment	9
Urban Programs and Poor Working Women	11
3. Objectives, Design, and Cost of the Hogares Comunitarios Program (HCP)	13
Objectives	13
Design	13
Cost Structure	15
4. Overview of Study Objectives, Design, Methods, and Samples	17
Operational Evaluation	17
Impact Evaluation	18
5. The Operational Evaluation of the HCP: Conceptual Framework, Objectives, 
and Methodology	21
Conceptual Aspects of Operations Research	21
Identification of the System to Be Analyzed	22
Objectives of the Operational Evaluation of the HCP	24
Methodology	25
Semi-Structured Interviews with the Program Caretaker	25
Semi-Structured Observations in the Hogares	27
Focus Groups	28
Geographic Area and Sample	29
6. How Well Does the HCP Work? Key Findings of the Operational Evaluation 
and Follow-Up Actions	31
Operational Aspects of the Program	31
Program Inputs	31
Parents? Inputs	34
Conclusions on Program?s Operations	35
Quality of Services	36
Hygiene and Safety of the Hogares	36
Daily Activities and Caretakers? Time Allocation	38
Interaction Between Caretakers and Beneficiary Children	41
Attitudes and Perceptions of the Main Implementers and Users 
Toward the Program	43
Caretaker Mothers	43
Beneficiary Parents	44
Social Workers	46
Summary of Recommendations Made and Response of the New Program 
Administration	46
7. The Impact Evaluation of the HCP: Objectives, Design, and Methodology	51
Objectives	51
Design	54
Matching by Design: BeneficiaryMmatched Control Survey	54
Propensity Score Matching	57
Random Sample Survey	59
Sample Size Calculations	59
Beneficiary/Matched Control Sample	59
Random Survey Sample	60
Geographical Location	60
Data Collection Methodology	61
Beneficiary/Matched Control Sample	61
Random Sample	63
8. Key Findings of the Evaluation of the Program?s Coverage, Cost, and Impact 
on Children?s Diets	65
Characteristics of Beneficiary Children and Households	65
Program Coverage	69
Patterns and Cost of Childcare in Guatemala City	74
Impact of the Program on Beneficiary Children?s Diets	78
Results Using the Beneficiary/Matched Control Design	79
Propensity Score Matching Results	85
The Caretaker Mothers: Other Beneficiaries of the Program?	87
9. Conclusions and Implications for Urban Programming	91
Key Findings	91
Strengths and Weaknesses of our Evaluation	94
Comparision with Other Community Day Care Programs in the 
Latin America Region	97
Lessons Learned for Urban Programming	99
Diagnosis	100
Targeting	101
Program Design	103
Partnerships	104
Conclusions	105
Annex: List of Modules and Data Collected for Beneficiary/Control and 
Random Samples	107
References	109
2.1	Poverty indicators by welfare measure, Central America comparisons	8
3.1	Cost structure of the Hogares Comunitarios Programa	16
4.1	Summary of operations research objectives, methods, and sample	18
4.2	Summary of impact evaluation objectives, design, sample, sampling 
strategy, and data collection methods	20
6.1	Conditions of material provided by program at the time of opening the 
hogar and at the time of interviews	32
6.2	How frequently are parents late in paying their monthly fees (based on 
the caretakers? recall)	35
6.3	Physical characteristics and availability of services in the HCP (n=206)	37
6.4	Frequency of observation of non-optimal hygiene practices (n=206)	38
6.5	Quality of interaction between caretakers and beneficiary children (n=183)	42
8.1	Characteristics of beneficiaries of the HCP, compared to the control group 
and mothers from the random sample	66
8.2	Reasons why mothers do not use the Hogares Comunitarios Program or 
would not use it even if space was available (random sample)	72
8.3	Childcare arrangements used by beneficiary and control households on 
weekdays (Monday to Friday) and their costa, b	75
8.4	Comparison of the mean monthly cost of childcare paid by beneficiary and 
control householdsa	77
8.5	Probit regressions of participation in the Hogares Comunitarios Program	86
8.6	Average treatment effect of HCP participation on program participants, 
propensity score matching method (Bootstrapped standard errors, 
50 replications)	87
8.7	Comparison of propensity score matching methods with paired beneficiary-
control results	88
5.1	Inputs and activities of the Hogares Comunitarios Program	23
6.1	Time allocation of program caretakers	40
8.1	Comparison of percentage of daily nutrient requirements met by 
beneficiary and control children (during their stay in place of care 
on weekdays)	80
8.2	Comparison of percentage of daily nutrient requirements met by 
beneficiary and control children (during weekends at home; 48-hour recall)	80
8.3	Comparison of percentage of daily nutrient requirements met by 
beneficiary and control children (before and after their stay in place of care on 
weekdays, 24-hour recall)	81
8.4	Contribution of selected food groups to iron intake (weekdays at place 
of care)	82
8.5	Contribution of selected food groups to vitamin A intake (weekdays at place 
of care)	82 

Library of Congress Subject Headings for this publication:

Day care centers -- Guatemala -- Evaluation.
Child care services -- Guatemala -- Evaluation.
Children -- Guatemala -- Nutrition.
Urban women -- Employment -- Guatemala.
Work and family -- Guatemala.
Hogares Communitarios Program.