Reconciling after civil conflict increases social capital but decreases individual well-being.

Civil wars divide nations along social, economic, and political cleavages, often pitting one neighbor against another. To restore social cohesion, many countries undertake truth and reconciliation efforts. We examined the consequences of one such effort in Sierra Leone, designed and implemented by a Sierra Leonean nongovernmental organization called Fambul Tok. As a part of this effort, community-level forums are set up in which victims detail war atrocities, and perpetrators confess to war crimes. We used random assignment to study its impact across 200 villages, drawing on data from 2383 individuals. We found that reconciliation had both positive and negative consequences. It led to greater forgiveness of perpetrators and strengthened social capital: Social networks were larger, and people contributed more to public goods in treated villages. However, these benefits came at a substantial cost: The reconciliation treatment also worsened psychological health, increasing depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder in these same villages. For a subset of villages, we measured outcomes both 9 months and 31 months after the intervention. These results show that the effects, both positive and negative, persisted into the longer time horizon. Our findings suggest that policy-makers need to restructure reconciliation processes in ways that reduce their negative psychological costs while retaining their positive societal benefits.

Global Fund grant programmes: an analysis of evaluation scores.

BACKGROUND: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria evaluates programme performance after 2 years to help decide whether to continue funding. We aimed to identify the correlation between programme evaluation scores and characteristics of the programme, the health sector, and the recipient country. METHODS: We obtained data on the first 140 Global Fund grants evaluated in 2006, and analysed 134 of these. We used an ordered probit multivariate analysis to link evaluation scores to different characteristics, allowing us to record the association between changes in those characteristics and the probability of a programme receiving a particular evaluation score. FINDINGS: Programmes that had government agencies as principal recipients, had a large amount of funding, were focused on malaria, had weak initial proposals, or were evaluated by the accounting firm KPMG, scored lowest. Countries with a high number of doctors per head, high measles immunisation rates, few health-sector donors, and high disease-prevalence rates had higher evaluation scores. Poor countries, those with small government budget deficits, and those that have or have had socialist governments also received higher scores. INTERPRETATION: Our results show associations, not causality, and they focus on evaluation scores rather than actual performance of the programmes. Yet they provide some early indications of characteristics that can help the Global Fund identify and monitor programmes that might be at risk. The results should not be used to influence the distribution of funding, but rather to allocate resources for oversight and risk management.