{"doc_desc":{"title":"NER_2015_SNPIE-EL_v02_M","idno":"DDI_NER_2015_SNPIE-EL_v02_M_WB","producers":[{"name":"Development Data Group","abbr":"DECDG","affiliation":"World Bank","role":"Documentation of the study"}],"prod_date":"2024-02-14","version_statement":{"version":"Version 02 (2024-02-14)\nVersion 2 - Added survey weights and up to date citations"}},"study_desc":{"title_statement":{"idno":"NER_2015_SNPIE-EL_v02_M","title":"Safety Nets Follow-up Panel Survey, 2015","alternate_title":"SSN Follow-up 2015"},"authoring_entity":[{"name":"Patrick Premand","affiliation":"World Bank"}],"production_statement":{"producers":[{"name":"Marc Smiz","abbr":"","affiliation":"","role":"Data Analyst"},{"name":"STPH\/RISEAL","abbr":"","affiliation":"","role":"Data Collection Firm"},{"name":"Horacio Vera Cossio","abbr":"","affiliation":"","role":"Research Assistant"}],"funding_agencies":[{"name":"World Bank Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund","abbr":"SIEF","role":"Co-financed follow-up data collection"},{"name":"Cellule Filets Sociaux (CFS), Gouvernement du Niger","abbr":"CFS","role":"Co-financed follow-up data collection"}]},"distribution_statement":{"contact":[{"name":"Patrick Premand","affiliation":"World Bank","email":"ppremand@worldbank.org","uri":""}],"depositor":[{"name":"Human Development Network (HDN)","abbr":"","affiliation":"","uri":""}]},"series_statement":{"series_info":"This is the follow-up panel survey for the Niger Safety Nets Project and the impact evaluation of its cash transfer component"},"version_statement":{"version":"Version 02. Edited, anonymized version for public distribution","version_notes":"Study updated with survey weights and up to date citations."},"study_info":{"abstract":"As part of the impact evaluation of the Niger Safety Nets Project, the World Bank and the Government of Niger contracted STPH\/RISEAL to conduct a follow-up panel survey in 6 communes participating in the first phase of the cash transfer program. The communes covered by the baseline survey include Tibiri and Guecheme in the region of Dosso, as well as Sae Saboua, Guidan Sori, Gangara and Tchadoua in the region of Maradi. The survey was implemented in 2015 with technical support from the World Bank. It included a household survey and a child survey.","coll_dates":[{"start":"2015-01-15","end":"2015-06-15","cycle":""}],"nation":[{"name":"Niger","abbreviation":"NER"}],"geog_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","analysis_unit":"Households, as well as individuals and children aged 6-59 months old within households.","data_kind":"Sample survey data [ssd]"},"method":{"data_collection":{"sampling_procedure":"The follow up survey sampling strategy builds on the baseline sampling strategy. The communes covered by the baseline survey include 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, many more that the project could serve. Given the difficulty to find 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 commune, a randomization procedure is 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 includes 151 clusters (244 villages). \n\nPrior 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 these criteria. The listing of households eligible to the cash transfer program constitutes 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.\n\nAfter 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. Table 3 below summarizes the composition of the baseline sample, including by treatment and control group, as well as by household beneficiary status in the treatment group. \n\nTable 3: Composition of Baseline Sample\n                                                C                CT         CT+BCC   Total\nBeneficiaries HH              0                558       570           1128\nNon-Beneficiaries HH   1469         862       871            3202\nTotal HH                              1469        1420     1441          4330\nTotal Clusters                   52             50         49               151\n\nThe 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 1.04 times the beneficiary selection threshold were selected, while half the households with a proxy means test score equal or greater than 1.04 times the beneficiary selection threshold were selected. Table 4 details the composition of the follow-up panel sample.\n\nTable 4: Composition of Follow-up Panel Sample\n                                          C            CT          CT+BCC    Total\nBeneficiaries               0            558         570           1128\nNon-Beneficiaries    1313     760         752            2825\nTotal                               1313     1318      1322          3953\nClusters                         52         50           49               151\n\nFor 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.","coll_mode":["Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]"],"research_instrument":"The follow up survey included two separate instruments: 1) a household survey and 2) a survey for children aged 6 to 59 months old. \n\nThe 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.\n\nThe survey for children aged 6-59 months builds on the MICS questionnaire and is consistent with the baseline test. Table 2 provides the full break-down of the household survey modules. The child questionnaire also included a cognitive test to measure cognitive development among children below 42 months. \n\nTable 1: Summary of Household Survey Modules\nSections Content\nSection Identification Household and household members identification and tracking\nSection 0.A Household Roster and Socio-Demographic Characteristics\nSection 0.B Education\nSection 1 Health and Reproductive health for women\nSection 2 Employment\nSection 3 Household Enterprises\nSection 4 Dwelling Characteristics\nSection 5.A Household Durable Goods\nSection 5.B Livestock\nSection 5.C Land \nSection 6 Shocks\nSection 7 Transfers\nSection 8.A Non-Food Expenditures in last 7 days\nSection 8.B Non-Food Expenditures in last 30 days\nSection 8.C Non-Food Expenditures in last 6 months\nSection 8.D Non-Food Expenditures in last 12 months\nSection 8.E Expenditures for Ceremonies in last 12 months\nSection 9.A Food Expenditures in last 7 days\nSection 9.B Food Security\nSection 11.A Saving Groups\nSection 11.B Intra Household decision making\nSection 11.C Social Cohesion\n\nTable 2: Summary of Child Survey Modules\nContent of Child Survey\nSections Content\nSection 0 Identification\nSection 1 Age\nSection 2 Nutrition and Health\nSection 3.A Parenting Practices\nSection 3.B Disciplining\nSection 3.C Child Care\nSection 3.D Socio-emotional development\nSection 4 Anthropometrics\nSection 5 Cognitive development test","coll_situation":"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-months 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. \n\nQuality controls were built-in the tablet Surveysolutions 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\u2019s remote area. Several machines had to be restored and a total of seven household interviews were lost.\n\nHousehold and child survey teams followed each other in the field. Household survey teams were responsible for refer 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.\n\nChild 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 reports as being 5 years old. The child survey team was thoroughly trained to establish ages.","act_min":"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.\nThe 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.","weight":"As mentioned above, 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 1.04 times the beneficiary selection threshold were selected, while half the households with a proxy means test score equal or greater than 1.04 times the beneficiary selection threshold were selected. \n\nThe household-level weight variable is sample_weight_strat. It takes the value of 1 (for households with PMT score below 1.045 times the beneficiary selection threshold at baseline) or 2 (for households with PMT score equal or greater than 1.04 times the beneficiary selection threshold at baseline). Additionally, weights \u2018W_CENSUS_itt\u2019, \u2018W_CENSUS_tot_benef\u2019, \u2018W_CENSUS_tot_benef\u2019 are proportional , respectively, to the number of houses, beneficiaries, and non-beneficiaries inside each cluster."},"method_notes":"We have added sub-dataset called 8_niger_2015_hh_conflict.dta. It contains a submodule of the survey on social cohesion and conflict, and is the dataset used in secondary analysis presented in: \n- Premand, Patrick and Dominic Rohner. 2023. \u201cCash and Conflict: Large-scale Experimental Evidence from Niger\u201d. American Economic Review, Insights","analysis_info":{"response_rate":"3811 of the 3953 households in the panel survey were tracked (96.4%). Table 5 details the composition of the follow-up panel sample.\n\nTable 5: Composition of follow-up panel sample\n\n                                                                 C               T               T+BCC    Total\nBeneficiaries                     child       0               855           826          1681\n                                                hh            0               541           557          1098\nNon-Beneficiaries          child       1724        971            896          3591\n                                               hh            1266        730            717           2713\nTotal                                     child       1724        1826          1722         5272\n                                               hh            1266        1271          1274         3811"}},"data_access":{"dataset_use":{"conf_dec":[{"txt":"The data has been anonymized","required":"","form_no":"","form_uri":""}],"contact":[{"name":"Patrick Premand","affiliation":"World Bank","email":"","uri":""}],"cit_req":"Use of the dataset must be acknowledged using a citation which would include: \n - the Identification of the Primary Investigator\n - the title of the survey (including country, acronym and year of implementation)\n - the survey reference number\n - the source and date of download\n\n Example:\n Patrick Premand (World Bank). Niger - Safety Nets Follow-up Panel Survey, 2015 (SSN Follow-up 2015). Ref: NER_2015_SNPIE-EL_v02_M. Downloaded from [uri] on [date].","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."}}},"schematype":"survey","tags":[{"tag":"DOI"}]}