KALAHI-CIDSS Community Development Grants 2012
Philippines, 2012
Innovations for Poverty Action
Created on
June 08, 2015
Last modified
June 08, 2015
Page views
77757
Download
23783
Documentation in PDF
Metadata
DDI/XML
JSON
Identification
Survey ID Number
PHL_2012_MCC-KCCDG_v01_M
Title
KALAHI-CIDSS Community Development Grants 2012
Country/Economy
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Philippines | PHL |
Study type
Independent Impact Evaluation
Abstract
This study is an impact evaluation of the KALAHI-CIDSS (KC) program. The impact evaluation's key research questions can be divided into the following four themes:
1. Socio-Economic Effects: Does KC increase household consumption? Does KC increase labor force participation?
2. Governance Effects: Does KC increase government leader responsiveness to community needs? Does KC reduce corruption and increase transparency?
3. Community Empowerment Effects: Does KC increase participation in local governance? Does KC increase collective action and contribution to local public goods?
4. Social Capital Effects: Does KC build groups and networks? In what ways are these networks applied? Does KC enhance trust?
In order to isolate KC's effects, a randomized control trial evaluation design was chosen. The impact evaluation sample consists of 198 municipalities (with 33 to 69 percent poverty incidence), spread over 26 provinces and 12 regions. The 198 municipalities were paired based on similar characteristics (99 pairs) and then randomly assigned into treatment and control groups through public lotteries. The sample size is large enough to be able to detect MCC's projected eight percent change in household income as well as other smaller effects. As part of the impact evaluation, baseline quantitative data were collected in the study area from April to July 2012. The quantitative data came from 5,940 household surveys in 198 barangays (one from each municipality) and 198 barangay surveys implemented in these same barangays
1. Socio-Economic Effects: Does KC increase household consumption? Does KC increase labor force participation?
2. Governance Effects: Does KC increase government leader responsiveness to community needs? Does KC reduce corruption and increase transparency?
3. Community Empowerment Effects: Does KC increase participation in local governance? Does KC increase collective action and contribution to local public goods?
4. Social Capital Effects: Does KC build groups and networks? In what ways are these networks applied? Does KC enhance trust?
In order to isolate KC's effects, a randomized control trial evaluation design was chosen. The impact evaluation sample consists of 198 municipalities (with 33 to 69 percent poverty incidence), spread over 26 provinces and 12 regions. The 198 municipalities were paired based on similar characteristics (99 pairs) and then randomly assigned into treatment and control groups through public lotteries. The sample size is large enough to be able to detect MCC's projected eight percent change in household income as well as other smaller effects. As part of the impact evaluation, baseline quantitative data were collected in the study area from April to July 2012. The quantitative data came from 5,940 household surveys in 198 barangays (one from each municipality) and 198 barangay surveys implemented in these same barangays
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Unit of Analysis
Individuals, households, community
Version
Version Description
Anonymized dataset for public distribution
Scope
Topics
| Topic |
|---|
| Community Driven Development |
Keywords
| Keyword |
|---|
| Community Development |
| Rural Poverty |
Coverage
Geographic Coverage
National coverage: The sample consists of 5,940 households in 198 barangays in 198 municipalities in 26 provinces in 12 regions. The sample is representative of the KALAHI-CIDSS target population across the nation.
Universe
The study population consists of barangays (villages) from the Philippines' poorest provinces. Survey respondent were barangay captains (village captains) and randomly selected households (30 randomly selected per barangay) from the sample of 198 barangays (villages).
Producers and sponsors
Primary investigators
| Name |
|---|
| Innovations for Poverty Action |
Funding Agency/Sponsor
| Name | Abbreviation |
|---|---|
| Millennium Challenge Corporation | MCC |
Sampling
Sampling Procedure
The impact evaluation focuses on municipalities with between 33-69% poverty incidence. A total of 198 eligible municipalities were matched on poverty incidence, population, land area, and number of barangays. The paired municipalities were then randomly assigned into treatment and control groups through public lotteries. This resulted in the final sample of 198 municipalities (when determining the number of treatment and control municipalities, we used sample size of 30 households per municipality, ensuring an 8% (positive) change in income would be detectable at 95% significance and 80% power). The large number of municipalities included in the evaluation will provide a sufficient level of precision to estimate KC's impacts nationwide in municipalities with a poverty incidence between 33-69%. One barangay within each of the 198 municipalities participating in the evaluation was randomly chosen, with a weighted probability favoring barangays with the highest poverty rates. Within each municipality, IPA divided barangays into quintiles based on poverty and dropped the quintile with the lowest poverty incidence. For each municipality, the barangay to be surveyed for the sample was then randomly selected from the remaining barangays. Within each barangay, 30 households were randomly selected from among all households to comprise the household surveyed sample.
Deviations from the Sample Design
N/A
Response Rate
100 percent
Weighting
N/A
Data Collection
Dates of Data Collection
| Start | End | Cycle |
|---|---|---|
| 2012-04-24 | 2012-07-07 | Baseline |
Supervision
Interviewing was conducted by 27 survey teams with a total of 27 field supervisors, 193 field interviewers and 31 field data editors. Each team consisted of 1 field supervisor, 6-8 field interviewers and 1-2 field data editors. The field editor was responsible for reviewing each questionnaire and conducting in the field data entry of all questionnaires. The first data entry of all quesitonnaires had to be completed in the barangay (village) before each team traveled to the next barangay.
Data Collectors
| Name | Abbreviation |
|---|---|
| Sustainable Development Solutions | SDS |
Questionnaires
Questionnaires
The baseline study included a barangay (village) questionnaire and a household questionnaire implemented in the following four different languages: Tagalog, Bisaya, Cebuano, llongo and llocano.
1. Household questionnaire: This questionnaire was composed of modules on education, labor income sources, household assets and amenities, expenditures, social networks, and other topics.
2. Barangay questionnaire: The barangay captains (village leaders were the principal respondents. The questionnaire collected data on the barangay's development projects, budget, demographics, the relationship between the existing barangay captain and its previous leadership, and other topics.
1. Household questionnaire: This questionnaire was composed of modules on education, labor income sources, household assets and amenities, expenditures, social networks, and other topics.
2. Barangay questionnaire: The barangay captains (village leaders were the principal respondents. The questionnaire collected data on the barangay's development projects, budget, demographics, the relationship between the existing barangay captain and its previous leadership, and other topics.
Data Processing
Data Editing
In the field, the field supervisor and data editor checked the questionnaires before the first data entry. The survey firm then conducted the second data entry in the main office and then checked the discrepancies between the first and the second data entry. The data cleaning process implemented by the survey firm included the following:
1. Naming and labelling the data
2. Checking the unique identifiers
3. Range checks and setting variable bounds
4. Check skip patterns and misisng data
5. Check logical consistency
6. Standardize string variable coding
After receiving the clean datasets from the survey firm, IPA conducted a second stage of data cleaning needed to construct variables for the analysis. This process involved carefully creating, summarizing and cross-checking key indicators.
1. Naming and labelling the data
2. Checking the unique identifiers
3. Range checks and setting variable bounds
4. Check skip patterns and misisng data
5. Check logical consistency
6. Standardize string variable coding
After receiving the clean datasets from the survey firm, IPA conducted a second stage of data cleaning needed to construct variables for the analysis. This process involved carefully creating, summarizing and cross-checking key indicators.
Other Processing
The first data entry was conducted in the field by the data editors accompanying each of the 27 survey teams. Each data editor used a field laptop to enter all data using an online data entry program. The second data entry was conducted in the survey firm's main office after the conclusion of the fieldwork. The two data entries were then reconciled to produce a third dataset. IPA provided the survey firm with a list of data entry guidelines including consistency checks. IPA reviewed and provided comments on each version of the dataset that was shared. After the survey firm made the revisions requested by IPA, the data was accepted by IPA.
Data Appraisal
Estimates of Sampling Error
N/A
Access policy
Contacts
| Name | Affiliation | |
|---|---|---|
| Monitoring & Evaluation Division | Millennium Challenge Corporation | impact-eval@mcc.gov |
Access conditions
Public use files, accessible to all
Citation requirements
Beatty, Amanda, Ariel BenYishay, Elisabeth King, Aniceto Orbeta, Menno Pradhan. 2012. KALAHI-CIDSS Impact Evaluation Baseline Survey. V1.
Location of Data Collection
Millennium Challenge Corporation
Archive where study is originally stored
Millennium Challenge Corporation
http://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/59
Cost: None
http://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/59
Cost: None
Metadata production
DDI Document ID
DDI_PHL_2012_MCC-KCCDG_v01_M
Producers
| Name | Abbreviation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Millennium Challenge Corporation | MCC | Review of Metadata |
| Innovations for Poverty Action | IPA | Independent Evaluator |
Date of Metadata Production
2014-06-18
DDI Document version
Version 1 (Original 2014-06-18)
Version 2.0 (May 2015). Edited version based on Version 01 (DDI-MCC-PHL-IPA-IE-2012-v01) that was done by Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Version 2.0 (May 2015). Edited version based on Version 01 (DDI-MCC-PHL-IPA-IE-2012-v01) that was done by Millennium Challenge Corporation.