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
133858
Downloads
10566
- 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_Q17a Description (P2_Q17a_OtherDes)
Data file: HHPreamble
Overview
Valid:
148
Invalid:
0
Type:
Discrete
Start:
940
End:
1037
Width:
98
Range:
-
Format:
character
Questions and instructions
Categories
| Value | Category | Cases | |
|---|---|---|---|
| BAD LUCK | 2 |
1.4%
|
|
| Did not attend registration | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| Did not meet criteria | 5 |
3.4%
|
|
| Did not meet registration | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| Did not meet the criteria | 2 |
1.4%
|
|
| I was left out because the required number of beneficiaries was full | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| I was told by the programme representertives that we are young we cannot be registered | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| REJECT BY HSNP STAFF WHO WERE DOING TARGETING | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES WAS ALREADY OBTAINED | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| TOO YOUNG | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| Told that the target number of beneficiaries had already been reached | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| Was not above 55yrs | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| able to work | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| bad luck | 18 |
12.2%
|
|
| bad luck they said | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| bad luck they say | 2 |
1.4%
|
|
| bad luck"they said | 2 |
1.4%
|
|
| because one of her son is working. | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| can work and provide for her kids | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| did go becauce of sickness | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| did not meet criteria | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| did not meet critria used | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| did not meet set criteria | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| don`t need it | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| due to bad luck they say, | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| had three cows | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| it was not fair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| it was notfair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| it`s totaly unfair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| method not fair | 14 |
9.5%
|
|
| method not unfair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| method totally unfair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| method ued unfair. | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| method unfair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| method use was totaly unfair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| method used are too unfair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| method used does not consider the poor | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| method used not fair | 3 |
2%
|
|
| method used not favourable for young people who are the mojarity and most poor | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| method used totaly unfair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| method used totaly unfair. | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| method used unfair | 3 |
2%
|
|
| method used was not fair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| method ussed not understood | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| never bunderstand mthod used | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| not all poor were targeted | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| not aware untill it was too later | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| not fair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| not from targeted location | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| not from the sub-location | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| not lucky | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| not lucky enough | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| not married by then | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| only old are selected | 3 |
2%
|
|
| only old are targeted | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| only old are targted | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| only old were selected | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| only old were targetted | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| people were many I coulb not be considered | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| process not fair | 2 |
1.4%
|
|
| process totaly unfair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| secondary recepient for her mother who is abeneficiary in rhamu | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| she had mental ilness. | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| target number too low | 2 |
1.4%
|
|
| targeted number of people very few | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| targetig criteria not fair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| targeting mechanism only favours old not young. | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| targeting mechanism unfair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| that imnot deserving | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| the process is not fair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| the process not fair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| the process was not fair | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| the required number of beneficiaries was already established | 2 |
1.4%
|
|
| the required number of beneficiaries was already obtained | 2 |
1.4%
|
|
| the required number of beneficiaries was enough | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| the target number of beneficiaries had already been acquired | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| there are so many poor young than the old targeted, method totaly unfai | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| they said computer selected people | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| they select 55 and above and am not qualified. | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| told computer rejected names | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| told computer rejected the HH | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| told lost by his bad luck | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| too busy to attend registration | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| too sick | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| too young | 2 |
1.4%
|
|
| under 55 age | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| unfair method used | 2 |
1.4%
|
|
| village elder told the programme officials not to register me | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| was a secondary recepient for her mother | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| was busy | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| was not interested | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| was rejected by the area chief | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| was told by programme representatives that women who have husbands are not required for HSNP | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| was told only the old are required | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| was told she lost because of bad luck | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| was told she lost with her bad luck | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| was told the computer rejected their names | 1 |
0.7%
|
|
| was told the machine rejected my names | 1 |
0.7%
|
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.