Safety Nets Project Impact Evaluation 2015, Follow-up (Endline) Survey
Niger, 2016
Get Microdata
Reference ID
NER_2015_SNPIE-EL_v01_M
Producer(s)
Patrick Premand
Metadata
Created on
Mar 09, 2023
Last modified
Mar 09, 2023
Page views
3596
Downloads
248
Identification
Survey ID Number
NER_2015_SNPIE-EL_v01_M
Title
Safety Nets Project Impact Evaluation 2015, Follow-up (Endline) Survey
Translated Title
Enquête de Suivi du Projet Filets Sociaux au Niger 2015
Country/Economy
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Niger | NER |
Study type
Other Household Survey
Series Information
This study is a follow-up panel survey for the Niger Safety Nets Project Impact Evaluation 2012.
Abstract
Niger is one of the poorest countries in the world and faces severe challenges in early childhood nutrition and development. It is estimated that 44% percent of the population in Niger lives on less than US$1.25 per day, and 75.23% on less than US$2 per day. More than 50 percent of Niger's population is food insecure, with 22 percent of the population suffering from chronic food insecurity (per capita consumption of less than 1,800 kcal/person/day) in any given year. Human development indicators are particularly alarming for children. The infant mortality rate is 66.4 per 1,000 live births. The prevalence of chronic malnutrition as measured by stunting (low height-for-age) is estimated at 50 percent, which makes Niger the second worst affected country in Sub-Saharan Africa. Seasonal and acute malnutrition is also very high.
While Niger has had institutions and programs aimed at reducing food insecurity, most programs have provided only ad hoc emergency assistance. The effect of these programs in reducing chronic food insecurity has been limited, particularly since they have been channeled towards short term emergency assistance following acute crises. To provide more sustainable approach to addressing chronic malnutrition, the World Bank Niger Safety Nets project (P123399, $70 millions) aims to establish and support an effective safety net system in order to increase access of poor and food insecure people to cash transfer and cash for work programs. The project contributes to building a comprehensive, permanent, and efficient safety net system that can address chronic food insecurity in Niger. In addition to system-building activities, the safety nets project includes a cash transfer for food security component (US$48.6 millions), as well as a cash-for-work component (US10.5 millions). The cash transfer component is the core building block of the Niger social protection system. It combines a cash transfer program (US$48.3 millions), as well as a parenting training intervention that serves as an accompanying measure to the cash transfer (US$10.3 millions).
Geographical targeting was used to select the poorest regions and communes to participate in the cash transfer program. The cash transfer program was implemented in several phases in 5 regions (Dosso, Maradi, Tahoua, Tillabery, and Zinder) that present the highest concentration of poverty in Niger and where 95 percent of the country's poor population lives. The first phase of the project targeted the regions of Dosso and Maradi, including 40% of the country's poor population. Within these regions, departments and communes eligible to the cash transfer program were selected through local stakeholder meetings with commune chiefs and regional leaders, who select communes to target based on available information from poverty maps and the levels of chronic vulnerability through a participatory process. As such, the eligible communes were chosen by local stakeholders as being the most disadvantaged areas.
An impact evaluation of the Niger Safety Nets Project was put in place in 6 communes participating in the first phase of the cash transfer program implemented by the government of Niger with support from the World Bank. The communes covered in the impact evaluation sample survey included Tibiri and Guecheme in the region of Dosso, as well as Sae Saboua, Guidan Sori, Gangara and Tchadoua in the region of Maradi. The baseline survey was implemented in 2012 by the national statistical agency with technical support from the World Bank. The follow-up panel survey 2015 was conducted by the Swiss Tropical and Public Health institute in collaboration with local NGO, RISEAL, and with support from the World Bank.
While Niger has had institutions and programs aimed at reducing food insecurity, most programs have provided only ad hoc emergency assistance. The effect of these programs in reducing chronic food insecurity has been limited, particularly since they have been channeled towards short term emergency assistance following acute crises. To provide more sustainable approach to addressing chronic malnutrition, the World Bank Niger Safety Nets project (P123399, $70 millions) aims to establish and support an effective safety net system in order to increase access of poor and food insecure people to cash transfer and cash for work programs. The project contributes to building a comprehensive, permanent, and efficient safety net system that can address chronic food insecurity in Niger. In addition to system-building activities, the safety nets project includes a cash transfer for food security component (US$48.6 millions), as well as a cash-for-work component (US10.5 millions). The cash transfer component is the core building block of the Niger social protection system. It combines a cash transfer program (US$48.3 millions), as well as a parenting training intervention that serves as an accompanying measure to the cash transfer (US$10.3 millions).
Geographical targeting was used to select the poorest regions and communes to participate in the cash transfer program. The cash transfer program was implemented in several phases in 5 regions (Dosso, Maradi, Tahoua, Tillabery, and Zinder) that present the highest concentration of poverty in Niger and where 95 percent of the country's poor population lives. The first phase of the project targeted the regions of Dosso and Maradi, including 40% of the country's poor population. Within these regions, departments and communes eligible to the cash transfer program were selected through local stakeholder meetings with commune chiefs and regional leaders, who select communes to target based on available information from poverty maps and the levels of chronic vulnerability through a participatory process. As such, the eligible communes were chosen by local stakeholders as being the most disadvantaged areas.
An impact evaluation of the Niger Safety Nets Project was put in place in 6 communes participating in the first phase of the cash transfer program implemented by the government of Niger with support from the World Bank. The communes covered in the impact evaluation sample survey included Tibiri and Guecheme in the region of Dosso, as well as Sae Saboua, Guidan Sori, Gangara and Tchadoua in the region of Maradi. The baseline survey was implemented in 2012 by the national statistical agency with technical support from the World Bank. The follow-up panel survey 2015 was conducted by the Swiss Tropical and Public Health institute in collaboration with local NGO, RISEAL, and with support from the World Bank.
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Unit of Analysis
- Households
- Individuals
- Children aged 6-59 months old
- Individuals
- Children aged 6-59 months old
Scope
Notes
- Household Survey: Socio-Demographic Characteristics, Education, Health and Reproductive health for women, Employment, Household Enterprises, Dwelling Characteristics, Household Durable Goods, Livestock, Land, Shocks, Transfers, Non-Food Expenditures in last 7 days, Non-Food Expenditures in last 30 days, Non-Food Expenditures in last 6 months, Non-Food Expenditures in last 12 months, Expenditures for Ceremonies in last 12 months, Food Expenditures in last 7 days, Food Security, Saving Groups, Intra Household decision making, Social Cohesion
- Child Survey: Nutrition and Health, Parenting Practices, Disciplining, Child Care, Socio-emotional development, Anthropometrics, Cognitive development test
- Child Survey: Nutrition and Health, Parenting Practices, Disciplining, Child Care, Socio-emotional development, Anthropometrics, Cognitive development test
Coverage
Geographic Coverage
The follow-up survey covers 151 clusters of villages in 6 communes from the regions of Dosso and Maradi:
- Tibiri and Guecheme in the region of Dosso
- Sae Saboua, Guidan Sori, Gangara and Tchadoua in the region of Maradi
- Tibiri and Guecheme in the region of Dosso
- Sae Saboua, Guidan Sori, Gangara and Tchadoua in the region of Maradi
Producers and sponsors
Primary investigators
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Patrick Premand | The World Bank |
Funding Agency/Sponsor
| Name | Abbreviation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| World Bank Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund | SIEF | Co-financed follow-up data collection |
| Cellule Filets Sociaux (CFS), Gouvernement du Niger | CFS | Co-financed follow-up data collection |
Other Identifications/Acknowledgments
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| Marc Smiz | Data Analyst |
| STPH/RISEAL | Data Collection Firm |
Sampling
Sampling Procedure
The follow up survey sampling strategy built on the baseline sampling strategy. The communes covered by the baseline survey included Tibiri and Guecheme in the region of Dosso, as well as Sae Saboua, Guidan Sori, Gangara and Tchadoua in the region of Maradi. In these communes, over 500 villages were eligible for the first phase of the Cash Transfer Program which was more than the project could serve. Given the difficulty in finding transparent targeting criteria to prioritize villages within communes, the project team decided to implement public lotteries to select beneficiary villages among all equally eligible villages. Within communes, a randomization procedure was used to select beneficiary villages through public lotteries in presence of village chiefs, commune authorities and program staff. Prior to performing the randomization, small villages were grouped into clusters containing at least 150 households. The randomization was performed by clusters, and stratified to ensure an equal probability of selection for nomadic and sedentary villages. In addition to selecting villages to benefit from the cash transfer project, a number of control villages were also drawn to be sampled at baseline. Since the baseline sample of clusters for the evaluation is obtained through randomization among all clusters of villages selected communes, it is representative of these communes. The final evaluation sample included 152 clusters (244 villages).
Prior to the baseline survey, a listing exercise was undertaken in all villages in the evaluation sample. Based on this household listing, screening criteria were applied to exclude ineligible households, defined by program documents as those with self-reported income higher than a pre-set threshold. Approximately 20% of households were deemed ineligible based on this criteria. The listing of households eligible for the cash transfer program constituted the sampling frame for the baseline survey. It is representative of households eligible for the cash transfer program at the commune level. Therefore, the evaluation sample is representative of eligible households in communes eligible to the cash transfer program. The evaluation sample was drawn by taking a random sample of 30 eligible households from the sampling frame in each cluster. The baseline survey successfully interviewed 4330 households.
After the baseline survey was conducted, clusters assigned to receive the cash transfer program were further randomized into a group that would receive the cash transfer only (CT), and a group that would receive the cash transfer plus behavioral change accompanying measures (CT+BCC). In addition, the baseline survey data was merged with administrative data from the cash transfer program in order to identify which households were selected as beneficiaries.
The sampling strategy for the follow-up survey aimed at ensuring sufficient statistical power to detect impacts between the various treatment and control groups, and including among the sub-sample of beneficiary households between the two treatment groups. Therefore, the follow-up sample was stratified based on the proxy means test score used to determine eligibility to the program. Specifically, all the households with a proxy means test score below 1.05 times the beneficiary selection threshold were selected, while half the households with a proxy means test score below 1.05 times the beneficiary selection threshold were selected.
For the purpose of the project impact evaluation, an additional booster sample of 1058 beneficiary households was randomly selected from the administrative database of beneficiaries and added to the follow-up sample. That booster sample is only added for the two treatment groups. The booster sample is not part of the follow-up panel survey.
Prior to the baseline survey, a listing exercise was undertaken in all villages in the evaluation sample. Based on this household listing, screening criteria were applied to exclude ineligible households, defined by program documents as those with self-reported income higher than a pre-set threshold. Approximately 20% of households were deemed ineligible based on this criteria. The listing of households eligible for the cash transfer program constituted the sampling frame for the baseline survey. It is representative of households eligible for the cash transfer program at the commune level. Therefore, the evaluation sample is representative of eligible households in communes eligible to the cash transfer program. The evaluation sample was drawn by taking a random sample of 30 eligible households from the sampling frame in each cluster. The baseline survey successfully interviewed 4330 households.
After the baseline survey was conducted, clusters assigned to receive the cash transfer program were further randomized into a group that would receive the cash transfer only (CT), and a group that would receive the cash transfer plus behavioral change accompanying measures (CT+BCC). In addition, the baseline survey data was merged with administrative data from the cash transfer program in order to identify which households were selected as beneficiaries.
The sampling strategy for the follow-up survey aimed at ensuring sufficient statistical power to detect impacts between the various treatment and control groups, and including among the sub-sample of beneficiary households between the two treatment groups. Therefore, the follow-up sample was stratified based on the proxy means test score used to determine eligibility to the program. Specifically, all the households with a proxy means test score below 1.05 times the beneficiary selection threshold were selected, while half the households with a proxy means test score below 1.05 times the beneficiary selection threshold were selected.
For the purpose of the project impact evaluation, an additional booster sample of 1058 beneficiary households was randomly selected from the administrative database of beneficiaries and added to the follow-up sample. That booster sample is only added for the two treatment groups. The booster sample is not part of the follow-up panel survey.
Response Rate
3811 of the 3953 households in the panel survey were tracked (96.4%).
Weighting
The follow-up sample was stratified based on the proxy means test score used to determine eligibility to the program. Specifically, all the households with a proxy means test score below 1.05 times the beneficiary selection threshold were selected, while half the households with a proxy means test score below 1.05 times the beneficiary selection threshold were selected. The household-level weight variable is sample_weight_strat. It takes the value of 1 (for households with PMT score below 1.05 times the beneficiary selection threshold at baseline) or 2 (or households with PMT score below 1.05 times the beneficiary selection threshold at baseline).
Data Collection
Dates of Data Collection
| Start | End |
|---|---|
| 2016-01-15 | 2016-06-15 |
Data Collection Mode
Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]
Supervision
Field teams for the survey included 6 household survey teams and 4 child survey teams. The household survey team included one supervisor and four enumerators. The child survey team included a supervisor and four enumerators. The coordination team included two survey coordinators and four quality controllers from STPH/RISEAL. The supervision team from the World Bank and Safety Nets project included a child development specialist, a field coordinator, and a data analyst. Thorough quality control procedures were put in place, with systematic verifications of the collected data by enumerators and supervisors. Additional verifications, including household visits, were undertaken by the coordination and quality control teams continuously over the full survey period.
Data Collection Notes
The follow up survey data collection was undertaken by the Swiss Tropical and Public Health institute (STPH) in collaboration with local NGO RISEAL, with technical support from the World Bank and the Safety Nets Project staff. The follow up survey for the impact evaluation was collected over a six-month period between mid-January and mid-June 2016. Household survey data collection was undertaken first, and child survey data collection followed a few months later. The survey period included breaks, as well as periods dedicated to reinforce knowledge of field protocol, to pass on new rules and to share experience. Preparatory activities took place between October 2015 and January 2016, including programming of the tablets, survey pre-testing both on paper and using tablets, preparation of the manuals and protocols and the training of the enumerators.
Quality controls were built-in the tablet Survey Solutions CAPI application, with pre-determined ranges, drop-down lists, and automatic validation of the fields as well as error messages to explain inconsistencies. Each data collection team had a supervisor responsible of validating questionnaires on a laptop before uploading it to the server via 3G. In addition, a dedicated team of quality controllers verified the data after it was sent to the server. Automated quality checks were also performed once the data was submitted to the server. During survey implementation, some issues arose because of low connectivity in Niger’s remote area. Several machines had to be restored and a total of seven household interviews were lost.
Household and child survey teams followed each other in the field. Household survey teams were responsible for referring children eligible for the child survey to the child survey teams. To ensure a smooth transition between the two teams, the child listing was extracted from the data uploaded on the server by the coordination team (after verification), and were loaded to the child survey team computers and tablets.
Child survey teams were responsible for collecting data for all children identified by the household survey team. The household survey listing provided the sampling frame of the child survey. In case of doubt as to whether a child was over or under 5, household teams were instructed to also refer the child to the survey team. In practice, this happens for some children under 6 months old, as well as for many children who report being 5 years old. The child survey team was thoroughly trained to establish ages.
Quality controls were built-in the tablet Survey Solutions CAPI application, with pre-determined ranges, drop-down lists, and automatic validation of the fields as well as error messages to explain inconsistencies. Each data collection team had a supervisor responsible of validating questionnaires on a laptop before uploading it to the server via 3G. In addition, a dedicated team of quality controllers verified the data after it was sent to the server. Automated quality checks were also performed once the data was submitted to the server. During survey implementation, some issues arose because of low connectivity in Niger’s remote area. Several machines had to be restored and a total of seven household interviews were lost.
Household and child survey teams followed each other in the field. Household survey teams were responsible for referring children eligible for the child survey to the child survey teams. To ensure a smooth transition between the two teams, the child listing was extracted from the data uploaded on the server by the coordination team (after verification), and were loaded to the child survey team computers and tablets.
Child survey teams were responsible for collecting data for all children identified by the household survey team. The household survey listing provided the sampling frame of the child survey. In case of doubt as to whether a child was over or under 5, household teams were instructed to also refer the child to the survey team. In practice, this happens for some children under 6 months old, as well as for many children who report being 5 years old. The child survey team was thoroughly trained to establish ages.
Data Collectors
| Name |
|---|
| STPH/RISEAL |
Questionnaires
Questionnaires
The follow up survey included two separate instruments: 1) a household survey and 2) a survey for children aged 6 to 59 months old.
The household survey instrument draws from the baseline survey, which itself builds on the comprehensive 2011 Niger LSMS-ISA survey instrument. This enables consistency and comparability of core poverty and human development indicators. Some additional modules were introduced in the follow-up survey instrument, including for instance a module on social cohesion in the household survey and a module on socio-emotional development in the child survey.
The survey for children aged 6-59 months builds on the MICS questionnaire and is consistent with the baseline test. The child questionnaire also included a cognitive test to measure cognitive development among children below 42 months.
The household survey instrument draws from the baseline survey, which itself builds on the comprehensive 2011 Niger LSMS-ISA survey instrument. This enables consistency and comparability of core poverty and human development indicators. Some additional modules were introduced in the follow-up survey instrument, including for instance a module on social cohesion in the household survey and a module on socio-emotional development in the child survey.
The survey for children aged 6-59 months builds on the MICS questionnaire and is consistent with the baseline test. The child questionnaire also included a cognitive test to measure cognitive development among children below 42 months.
Access policy
Contacts
| Name | Affiliation | |
|---|---|---|
| Patrick Premand | The World Bank | ppremand@worldbank.org |
Citation requirements
Use of the dataset must be acknowledged using a citation which would include:
- the Identification of the Primary Investigator
- the title of the survey (including country, acronym and year of implementation)
- the survey reference number
- the source and date of download
Example:
Patrick Premand, The World Bank. Safety Nets Project Impact Evaluation Follow-up (Endline) Survey (SNPIE-EL) 2015. Ref. NER_2015_SNPIE-EL_v01_M. Dataset downloaded from [URL] on [date].
- the Identification of the Primary Investigator
- the title of the survey (including country, acronym and year of implementation)
- the survey reference number
- the source and date of download
Example:
Patrick Premand, The World Bank. Safety Nets Project Impact Evaluation Follow-up (Endline) Survey (SNPIE-EL) 2015. Ref. NER_2015_SNPIE-EL_v01_M. Dataset downloaded from [URL] on [date].
Access authority
| Name | Affiliation | |
|---|---|---|
| Patrick Premand | World Bank | ppremand@worldbank.org |
Disclaimer and copyrights
Disclaimer
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Metadata production
DDI Document ID
DDI_NER_2015_SNPIE-EL_v01_M_WB
Producers
| Name | Abbreviation | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Development Economics Data Group | DECDG | The World Bank | Documentation of the DDI |
Date of Metadata Production
2016-03-04
DDI Document version
Version 01 (March 2016)