Hunger Safety Net Programme Impact Evaluation 2009-2010, Baseline Survey
Kenya, 2009 - 2010
Get Microdata
Reference ID
KEN_2009_HSNP-BL_v01_M
Producer(s)
Oxford Policy Management Limited
Collection(s)
Metadata
Created on
Jan 10, 2014
Last modified
Jan 13, 2014
Page views
192730
Downloads
20347
- Data files
- 3moves
- 3table
- 5table
- 6education
- 6health
- 6personnel
- 6table
- 7food
- 7food1
- 7other
- 7other1
- comq_linking_BL
- comq_weights
- coversheet
- section1
- section2
- section3
- section4
- section5
- section8
- section9
- section10
- section11
- section99
- HHAsset
- HHAssetLivelihood
- HHBeneficiaries
- HHChild
- HHconsData
- HHCopingStrategy
- HHData
- HHEmploymentProramme
- HHEnrollment
- HHEnterprise
- HHEnterpriseMember
- HHFoodAid
- HHFoodconsData
- HHItemPurchaseDistance
- HHLand
- HHLivestock
- HHMember
- HHOtherDescription
- HHPreamble
- HHProvidedFor
- HHTransfer
- HHVisit
- HHWives
- hh_weights_original
- ClusterMaster
- disaggregation_data
P2_Q05a Description (P2_Q05a_OtherDes)
Data file: HHPreamble
Overview
Valid:
50
Invalid:
0
Type:
Discrete
Start:
391
End:
467
Width:
77
Range:
-
Format:
character
Questions and instructions
Categories
| Value | Category | Cases | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assured the programme will come back | 1 |
2%
|
|
| JUST LEFT DON'T NO WHY | 1 |
2%
|
|
| Rejected by chief | 1 |
2%
|
|
| Was at work | 1 |
2%
|
|
| able to work | 2 |
4%
|
|
| bad luck | 6 |
12%
|
|
| by bad luck | 1 |
2%
|
|
| can work | 1 |
2%
|
|
| don 't know | 1 |
2%
|
|
| don`t know | 2 |
4%
|
|
| don`t known | 3 |
6%
|
|
| his mothe was selected | 1 |
2%
|
|
| it was segregative methods used | 1 |
2%
|
|
| medotho not fair | 1 |
2%
|
|
| method not fair | 2 |
4%
|
|
| method not fair. | 1 |
2%
|
|
| method total unfair | 1 |
2%
|
|
| method unfair | 1 |
2%
|
|
| method used not understood | 1 |
2%
|
|
| method used totaly unfair | 1 |
2%
|
|
| method used unfair | 2 |
4%
|
|
| not all the poor were selected | 1 |
2%
|
|
| not married by then | 1 |
2%
|
|
| not selected | 1 |
2%
|
|
| process not fair | 3 |
6%
|
|
| process totaly unfair | 1 |
2%
|
|
| some poor were left out | 1 |
2%
|
|
| targetting was not fair. | 1 |
2%
|
|
| the proccess was`t fair | 1 |
2%
|
|
| those people who did registration were not fair, | 1 |
2%
|
|
| totally rejected | 1 |
2%
|
|
| unfair method used | 1 |
2%
|
|
| was a secondary recepient for my mother | 1 |
2%
|
|
| was given negative information concerning the programe | 1 |
2%
|
|
| was present but not registered during registration | 1 |
2%
|
|
| was unfair | 1 |
2%
|
|
| went to the town | 1 |
2%
|
Warning: these figures indicate the number of cases found in the data file. They cannot be interpreted as summary statistics of the population of interest.