Impact Evaluation of the Lesotho Child Grants Programme; 2011-2013
Lesotho, 2011 - 2013
Get Microdata
Reference ID
LSO_2011-2013_CGP_v01_EN_M_v01_A_OCS
Producer(s)
Oxford Policy Management, Sechaba Consultants
Collections
Metadata
Created on
Jul 17, 2020
Last modified
Jul 17, 2020
Page views
1300
Downloads
571
Identification
Survey ID Number
LSO_2011-2013_CGP_v01_EN_M_v01_A_OCS
Title
Impact Evaluation of the Lesotho Child Grants Programme; 2011-2013
Country
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Lesotho | LSO |
Study type
Other Household Survey [hh/oth]
Series Information
This impact evaluation study of the Child Grants Program (CGP) comprises of a baseline survey conducted in 2011 and a follow-up survey in 2013.
Abstract
The Lesotho Child Grants Programme (CGP) provides an unconditional cash transfer to poor and vulnerable households with the primary objective of improving the living standards of Orphan and Vulnerable Children (OVCs) through better nutrition and health status and increase school enrolment. The CGP is targeted at poor households with children, including child headed households. Households are paid quarterly with benefit sizes varying according to the number of children in the household. In mid-2015 the quarterly benefit size was approximately US$36 for 1-2 children, US$60 for 3-4 children and US$75 for 5+ children. Poverty eligibility is based on a proxy means score using the National Information System for Social Assistance (NISSA) plus a community validation.
The impact evaluation of Lesotho’s CGP cash transfer program was a 24-month community-level randomized control longitudinal study, which began in 2011 with a baseline survey across five Districts (Berea, Leribe, Mafeteng, Maseru and Qacha’s Nek). The full study comprised a quantitative and qualitative impact evaluation, a local economy general equilibrium study, and a targeting study. This data package contains three quantitative datasets (individual/household and community surveys) and auxiliary information files. The dataset covers a wide variety of topics from the quantitative study, including health, financial well-being, education, and productivity of recipient and non-recipient households; the data from the qualitative and other portions of the study are not included.
The data within this study has been corrected in the follow up survey; some households were split and/or added and assigned a new unique identifier. The dataset is accompanied by a Data Use Instructions document (available in documentation) that provides further information on this and other details of the project and dataset contents. We recommend it be read prior to requesting any data.
The impact evaluation of Lesotho’s CGP cash transfer program was a 24-month community-level randomized control longitudinal study, which began in 2011 with a baseline survey across five Districts (Berea, Leribe, Mafeteng, Maseru and Qacha’s Nek). The full study comprised a quantitative and qualitative impact evaluation, a local economy general equilibrium study, and a targeting study. This data package contains three quantitative datasets (individual/household and community surveys) and auxiliary information files. The dataset covers a wide variety of topics from the quantitative study, including health, financial well-being, education, and productivity of recipient and non-recipient households; the data from the qualitative and other portions of the study are not included.
The data within this study has been corrected in the follow up survey; some households were split and/or added and assigned a new unique identifier. The dataset is accompanied by a Data Use Instructions document (available in documentation) that provides further information on this and other details of the project and dataset contents. We recommend it be read prior to requesting any data.
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Unit of Analysis
Households, Individuals, Communities
Scope
Notes
1. The scope for the household baseline survey (2011) includes: Household roster and demographic information; Household health of resident members and children (0-17); Child health; Child education; Household non-agricultural business, business and self employment; Land; Crop production; Livestock production; Agricultural inputs and assets; Hired labour in farming and livestock activities; Adult and child labour; Child time use and labour; Housing characteristics and ownership of assets; Food security; Financial assets and risk preferences; Economic shocks; Institutional transfers; Networks and informal transfers; Targeting; Climate Change and Adaptation Strategies; Food Consumption and Expenditure (last 7 days); Non-Food Consumption & expenditure (3 months recall).
2. The scope for the community baseline survey (2011) includes: Preliminary details; Interviewee roster; Civil infrastructure and seasonality; Agriculture; Wages and economic activity; Local businesses; Shocks; Local prices; Service Provision (Health and Schools); Targeting.
3. The scope for the household follow-up survey (2013) includes: Household roster and demographic information; Household health of resident members and children (0-17); Child health; Child education; Household non-agricultural business, business and self employment; Land; Crop production; Livestock production; Agricultural inputs and assets; Hired labour in farming and livestock activities; Adult and child labour; Child time use and labour; Housing characteristics and ownership of assets; Food security; Financial assets and risk preferences; Economic shocks; Institutional transfers; Networks and informal transfers; Targeting; Climate Change and Adaptation Strategies; Food Consumption and Expenditure (last 7 days); Non-Food Consumption & expenditure (3 months recall); Operational module.
4. The scope for the community follow-up survey (2013) includes: Preliminary details; Interviewee roster; Civil infrastructure and seasonality; Agriculture; Wages and economic activity; Local businesses; Shocks; Local prices; Service Provision (Health and Schools); Operational module.
2. The scope for the community baseline survey (2011) includes: Preliminary details; Interviewee roster; Civil infrastructure and seasonality; Agriculture; Wages and economic activity; Local businesses; Shocks; Local prices; Service Provision (Health and Schools); Targeting.
3. The scope for the household follow-up survey (2013) includes: Household roster and demographic information; Household health of resident members and children (0-17); Child health; Child education; Household non-agricultural business, business and self employment; Land; Crop production; Livestock production; Agricultural inputs and assets; Hired labour in farming and livestock activities; Adult and child labour; Child time use and labour; Housing characteristics and ownership of assets; Food security; Financial assets and risk preferences; Economic shocks; Institutional transfers; Networks and informal transfers; Targeting; Climate Change and Adaptation Strategies; Food Consumption and Expenditure (last 7 days); Non-Food Consumption & expenditure (3 months recall); Operational module.
4. The scope for the community follow-up survey (2013) includes: Preliminary details; Interviewee roster; Civil infrastructure and seasonality; Agriculture; Wages and economic activity; Local businesses; Shocks; Local prices; Service Provision (Health and Schools); Operational module.
Topics
| Topic |
|---|
| Education |
| Health Status |
| Demographic Factors |
| Financial Activities |
| Household Consumption |
| Livelihood |
| Agriculture |
| Agricultural Development |
| Occupations |
Coverage
Geographic Coverage
Regional Coverage.
Universe
Poor households with orphans and vulnerable children (OVC).
Producers and sponsors
Primary investigators
| Name |
|---|
| Oxford Policy Management |
| Sechaba Consultants |
Producers
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Ministry of Social Development | Government of Lesotho | Partner/Implementer |
| United Nations International Children's Fund | Partner/Implementer |
Funding Agency/Sponsor
| Name | Abbreviation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| European Union | EU | Funding |
| United Nations International Children's Fund | UNICEF | Funding |
Sampling
Sampling Procedure
This is a randomized delayed intervention study. Within 10 Community Councils selected for Phase 1 - Round 2 expansion of the programme, half of all the Electoral Divisions (EDs) were randomly assigned to be covered by the pilot, while the other half served as the comparison group for the period of the study and were only covered after the end of the two-year evaluation period. EDs were assigned to either the treatment or the delayed entry (control in public lottery events that took place in each electoral division.
The study took place in five Districts: Qacha's Nek, Maseru, Leribe, Berea and Mafeteng, covering in total 10 Community Councils and 96 EDs. The survey collected information from both a sample of CGP eligible households (48.7% of the baseline sample) and households who were not eligible for the programme (51.3% of the baseline sample). To identify CGP-eligible households in treatment EDs the CGP implemented the targeting process, selected recipients and proceeded to enrolment. In control EDs the CGP implemented the targeting process and selected recipients who should receive the transfer, but enrolment was delayed until after the follow-up data collection was completed. Two villages (or clusters) were chosen within each selected ED, in each of which 20 households (10 eligible and 10 non-eligible at baseline) were randomly selected and interviewed.
The baseline survey fieldwork took place between June and August 2011 and 3,054 households - more than 98% of the original baseline sample target - roughly equally distributed between treatment and control areas and across eligible and non-eligible households. The follow-up survey for this panel dataset fieldwork took place at the same time of the year (between June and August 2013) to avoid seasonality bias, and reached 2,212 households.
For more information on the sampling design, check the sampling and targeting evaluation design document attached in the documentation/external resources.
The study took place in five Districts: Qacha's Nek, Maseru, Leribe, Berea and Mafeteng, covering in total 10 Community Councils and 96 EDs. The survey collected information from both a sample of CGP eligible households (48.7% of the baseline sample) and households who were not eligible for the programme (51.3% of the baseline sample). To identify CGP-eligible households in treatment EDs the CGP implemented the targeting process, selected recipients and proceeded to enrolment. In control EDs the CGP implemented the targeting process and selected recipients who should receive the transfer, but enrolment was delayed until after the follow-up data collection was completed. Two villages (or clusters) were chosen within each selected ED, in each of which 20 households (10 eligible and 10 non-eligible at baseline) were randomly selected and interviewed.
The baseline survey fieldwork took place between June and August 2011 and 3,054 households - more than 98% of the original baseline sample target - roughly equally distributed between treatment and control areas and across eligible and non-eligible households. The follow-up survey for this panel dataset fieldwork took place at the same time of the year (between June and August 2013) to avoid seasonality bias, and reached 2,212 households.
For more information on the sampling design, check the sampling and targeting evaluation design document attached in the documentation/external resources.
Weighting
Sampling weights have been generated and used to produce estimates that relate to all households living in the electoral divisions covered by the evaluation. Even though the EDs were selected randomly, the ED sampling probabilities are not reflected in the household sampling weights and therefore the estimates do not apply to any households that are located outside the evaluation EDs. As such, the EDs selected for the evaluation represent only the 'study population' and no inferences should be drawn about the wider population of Lesotho.
Data Collection
Dates of Data Collection
| Start | End | Cycle |
|---|---|---|
| 2011-06 | 2011-08 | Wave 1; Baseline |
| 2013-06 | 2013-08 | Wave 2; Follow-up |
Data Collection Mode
Face-to-face paper [f2f]
Access policy
Confidentiality
See https://transfer.cpc.unc.edu/
Access conditions
Non-sensitive data are available for download upon approval of a restricted use application, which comprises a data request form, a data use agreement and a security pledge. Sensitive data are likewise available to qualified researchers through an additional process of obtaining an IRB approval and providing a satisfactory data security plan. Available datasets vary by country and wave of the data collection, and may be designated "sensitive" due to inclusion of birth day and month, sexual history, or other medical information.
The dataset is accompanied by a Data Use Instructions document (available below) that should be read prior to requesting any data, as it provides further information on the project and dataset contents.
See https://transfer.cpc.unc.edu/tools/data-2/ for more details.
The dataset is accompanied by a Data Use Instructions document (available below) that should be read prior to requesting any data, as it provides further information on the project and dataset contents.
See https://transfer.cpc.unc.edu/tools/data-2/ for more details.
Citation requirements
Oxford Policy Management, Sechaba Consultants. Impact Evaluation of the Lesotho Child Grants Programme; 2011-2013, Lesotho. Dataset downloaded from https://microdata.fao.org.
Metadata production
DDI Document ID
DDI_LSO_2011-2013_CGP_v01_EN_M_v01_A_OCS_FAO
Producers
| Name | Abbreviation | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Chief Statistician | OCS | Food and Agriculture Organization | Metadata adapted for FAM |
| The Transfer Project | TTP | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill | Metadata producer |
DDI Document version
LSO_2011-2013_CGP_v01_EN_M_v01_A_OCS_v01