Resource Library

Browse for training, documents, and wiki content in our Resource Library with over 1,000 entries. Use the search box and/or filters on the left-hand side to refine the results by topic, document type, donor, and region/country.

Find a Resource

Showing 10 results

Poverty Outreach in Fee-for-Service Savings Groups

This research paper shares findings from a large-scale randomized control trial conducted in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. The paper describes the poverty profile of community members that participate in CRS' Savings and Internal Lending Communities and shows that CRS is reaching the very poor. Additionally, communities that paid for SILC services through Private Service Providers achieved greater resilience than those that received subsidized support through the traditional field agent approach.     About SILC Innovations

Agent Productivity in Fee-for-Service Savings Groups

A randomized control trial evaluation found that savings-group agents who operated on a fee-for-service basis showed higher variability and formed fewer groups on average than project-paid agents over the same period.

Group Performance in Fee-for-Service Savings Groups

A randomized control trial evaluation shows that savings groups supported by fee-for-service agents significantly outperform groups supported by stipend-paid agents on a wide range of key financial and membership measures.

Microinsurance decisions: Evidence from Ethiopia

This study reviews evidence collected from a microinsurance field experiment in rural Ethiopia. The experiment involves collecting data from individuals in order to predict the shape of the demand curve for indexed insurance.

Food Aid and Food Security in the Short and Long Run: Country Experience from Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa

This document, produced under a primer series on social safety nets, assesses the role of food aid in improving food availability and food access. It is based on a synthesis of experiences in four countries:  India, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Zambia. It concludes that food aid does not have to create negative impacts, particularly if it is tied to the development of infrastructure that supports production and market linkages, avoids creating negative price effects for food producers, and reaches the food insecure.