CDD and Social Capital Impact Designing a Baseline Survey in the Philippines Copyright © 2005 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C., 20433, USA All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First Printing May 2005 This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, http://www.copyright.com/. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, and e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org. Table of Contents Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................i Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................v Background...................................................................................................................................................1 Evaluating CDD: Managing Real World Constraints...................................................................................3 Data Collected and Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................7 Poverty indicators..................................................................................................................................7 Social capital, empowerment and governance.....................................................................................11 Concluding Remarks: Need for flexibility in operations ............................................................................16 References...................................................................................................................................................17 Annex 1: The KALAHI-CIDSS..................................................................................................................18 Annex 2: Sampling Design .........................................................................................................................24 Annex 3: Household survey........................................................................................................................39 Annex 4: Village official survey.................................................................................................................75 Annex 5: Selected summary statistics.........................................................................................................84 Annex 6: TOR for qualitative component.................................................................................................104 Table 1: Data collection for KALAHI-CIDSS impact evaluation Table 2: Survey Municipalities Table 3: Poverty in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities Table 4: Service provision in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities Table 5: Social capital in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities Table 6: Participation in governance in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities Table 7: Decision-making process ­ investment planning Box 1: Lessons learned from survey implementation Box 2: Differences between Intervention and Comparison Groups Executive Summary Given the increasing use of CDD approaches in the Bank's lending portfolio, it is important to develop insights on the impact of CDD programs, and to identify conditions and techniques that work well in order to improve project performance. The baseline survey of the KALAHI-CIDSS project in the Philippines is an attempt to generate such insights and strengthen learning about CDD programs through rigorous evaluations. This evaluation follows the "good practices" prescribed by experts in that it collects quality baseline data in a representative sample of both intervention groups and matched comparison groups. This baseline survey not only provides valuable information about the KALAHI-CIDSS project, but also offers some guidance on developing technically sound evaluations for CDD programs. One of the most promising CDD operations in the East Asia region, and in the Bank portfolio, is the KALAHI-CIDSS project in the Philippines, implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). In accordance with the imperative to learn what works, the DSWD and the World Bank are committed to a careful impact evaluation of the KALAHI-CIDSS. As the source of ex-ante information for the KALAHI-CIDSS, a quantitative baseline survey was implemented in Phase 3 municipalities in the fall of 2003. It served as the first round of a panel survey that will track 2,400 households and 132 villages before, during, and after project implementation1. The survey captures information on household and village conditions in intervention and comparison communities. In future rounds, the survey will be complemented by a qualitative component to allow for triangulation of information and a richer and more detailed analysis. This data will primarily provide baseline information for determining the impact of the KALAHI-CIDSS on poverty reduction, social capital, empowerment and governance. In addition, a deeper understanding of the areas in which the KALAHI-CIDSS will operate has great value of its own. Together with lessons learned from project implementation to date, the baseline survey for the KALAHI-CIDSS impact evaluation provides valuable information for project management. The survey finds that poverty is widespread in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities. In all dimensions of poverty, means (income/expenditure, quality of labor supply), outcomes (education, health, housing and amenities) and perception (self-rated poverty), the incidence of poverty is estimated to be very high. The baseline survey also gets villagers' pre-intervention status on access to neighboring villages, local markets, schools, and other public facilities; travel time and transport costs; water and sanitation; health conditions; and education outcomes. In general, access conditions are very limited, indicating the poverty in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities. Road conditions and access to water are especially poor when compared to other facilities such as education and health. This may explain the large preference of early KALAHI-CIDSS villages to build roads and water systems. Some of the challenges for the KALAHI-CIDSS include: · understanding how the project can build on existing social dynamics and practices in the villages to facilitate participation, and · promoting the emergence of capable leaders, and internalizing transparent communication and management practices. For example, the capability of communities to organize themselves is a key variable relevant to the success of the project. Community capacity to organize can be measured by social capital conditions, which includes trust, inclusion, groups and networks, collective action, and information and communication. Measuring initial social capital conditions in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities allows for an assessment of whether 1Funding for further data collection has been secured through the Japan Social Development Fund. ii communities with more social capital are more effective in having their proposals funded and in implementing their sub-projects. It also provides useful information to project management about existing conditions that facilitate or hinder KALAHI-CIDSS implementation. Social capital and governance indicators vary across the survey municipalities but seem to be stronger in the relatively deprived areas in Mindanao. There is, for example, a remarkably strong tradition of Bayanihan2/collective action in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities in Mindanao. Despite low levels of trust and problems with conflict and violence in all four survey provinces, most respondents perceive their village as relatively peaceful. Interestingly, the two provinces in Mindanao, where peace and order problems are widespread, perceive themselves as most peaceful. A key finding of the survey is that different regions in the country vary quite substantially both in terms of poverty and in the extent of empowerment and inclusive governance. This suggests that certain areas might require different strategies and focal points than others and underscores the importance of maintaining flexibility and adaptability in KALAHI-CIDSS implementation. As large-scale programs such as the KALAHI-CIDSS institutionalize standard practices across a large number of diverse local areas, they can lose one of their main advantages, their demand responsiveness. Balancing scale and flexibility is a challenge to any large CDD program. It is recommended that the DSWD and the Bank continue discussions around whether the project as currently designed, implemented through 16 pre-determined steps, allows for the needed flexibility and adaptability. These discussions should focus on how the project can best tackle and adapt to the diversity of local conditions it will inevitably confront.3 This report on the KALAHI-CIDSS baseline survey serves as a resource to several distinct audiences. For those interested in techniques for evaluating CDD, it offers an example of how to develop a technically rigorous evaluation working with operational constraints. For those with an interest in social capital and empowerment, it gives an example of how to approach quantitative measurement of these concepts. Finally, for those with a specific interest in CDD and social capital in the Philippines, the report introduces a data source that could be used effectively for further research and to improve operations. While this report is not a comprehensive analysis of what the data indicates, it is meant to serve as a stepping stone for others to do further research and analysis. 2Bayanihan is a Filipino tradition wherein neighbors would help a relocating family by gathering under their house, and carrying it to its new location. More generally, the word bayanihan has come to mean a communal spirit that makes seemingly impossible feats possible through the power of unity and cooperation. In this context, we use bayanihan as a proxy for collective action. 3In the Kecamatan Development Project (KDP) in Indonesia, for example, they ended up developing a completely different operations manual for one area (Papua) because regular operational procedures did not fit local conditions there. Other areas also made operational adaptations based on local conditions and needs. iii Acknowledgements This report was written by Robert S. Chase and Camilla R. Holmemo, Social Development Department, World Bank. The authors wish to thank the TFESSD for financing the baseline survey as part of its allocation to "Build Social Capital through CDD". We also wish to thank a number of actors who were instrumental in developing the evaluation: the Department of Social Welfare and Development of the Philippines for their commitment to undertaking a rigorous impact evaluation; Bhuvan Bhatnager, former Task Team Leader of the KALAHI-CIDSS for his valuable support and inputs from the beginning of this work; Andrew Parker, current Task Team Leader, for his continuing support; Arsenio Balisacan, Rosemarie Edillon, and Sharon F. Piza of the Asia-Pacific Policy Center, for designing and implementing the baseline survey; all the researchers and enumerators employed in the field for their hard and challenging work; and the KALAHI-CIDSS task team and colleagues from the CDD and Social Capital anchor for their review and comments to earlier drafts of the survey instruments and this report. This paper greatly benefits from the comments of Dan Biller, John Maluccio, Agnes Quisimbing, and Susan Wong (peer reviewers) as well as from the valuable feedback of Ed Araral, Elinor Ostrom, and Julien Labonne. Special thanks to Danielle Christophe and Aditi Sen for their assistance with editing and publishing this paper. All errors and omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors. iv Acronyms and Abbreviations APPC Asia-Pacific Policy Center BA Barangay (village) Assembly CARAGA Cordilla Administrative Region CDD Community-driven development DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development EAP East Asia and the Pacific GOP Government of the Philippines KALAHI-CIDSS Kapitbisig Laban sa Kahirapan (Linking Arms against Poverty) -Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services LGU Local Government Unit MIAC Municipal Inter Agency Committee MIBF Municipal Inter Barangay Forum FY Fiscal Year TFESSD Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development v Background Widespread poverty continues to be a challenge in the Philippines. Estimates of national poverty incidence4 show that more than one third (34%) of the country's population, or 26.5 million Filipinos, lived below the poverty line in 20005. Poverty is predominantly a rural phenomenon. While it remained unchanged at 15% in urban areas, the proportion of poor in rural areas increased from 39.9% in 1997 to 41.4% in 2000. The geographic variations in poverty are also substantial. In 2002, for example, poverty incidence in the National Capital Region was 5.7% while it was 49.0% in Region V, 37.8 % in Region VI, 38.3% in Region IX and 42.9% in Cordilla Administrative Region (CARAGA).6 The Autonomous Republic in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) has the highest poverty incidence in the country, at 57%. Government Strategy: Worsening poverty has had serious consequences for the economic, political and social fabric of the Philippines. There is perceived to be a strong link between high levels of absolute poverty and the persistence of civil unrest and armed conflict in certain parts of the country. Calling for rapid growth and empowerment of the poor, the Philippine Government has declared that success in the fight against poverty is the long-term solution to achieving sustained peace. The poverty reduction strategy of the Philippine Government has five pillars: (a) asset reform; (b) human development; (c) employment generation and livelihood; (d) social protection; and (e) participation in governance. While the KALAHI-CIDSS contributes to all five pillars of the strategy, it specifically addresses participation in governance. The government has focused on the KALAHI-CIDSS as its flagship poverty reduction project. Project Description: Using CDD approaches, the KALAHI-CIDSS seeks the empowerment of local communities through increased participation in local governance and involvement in the design, implementation and management of poverty reduction projects. This objective, which establishes a strong link between improved local governance and poverty reduction, is pursued through three components: (a) provision of community grants; (b) implementation support to strengthen formal and informal local institutions; and (c) monitoring and evaluation. The KALAHI-CIDSS will be implemented over six years in 4,270 villages and 177 municipalities in the 42 poorest provinces of the Philippines. The provinces are selected based on poverty data from the National Statistics and Coordination Board (NSCB). Using municipal poverty mapping methods developed by the Asia-Pacific Policy Center, the poorest one-fourth of all municipalities within a target province are selected to participate in the KALAHI-CIDSS. All villages within selected municipalities are eligible to participate in the project. Implementation of the KALAHI-CIDSS is divided into four phases. Phase 1 was launched in January 2003 and covered 201 villages in 11 municipalities of 11 provinces. Phase 2 was launched in July 2003 in 1,302 villages and 56 municipalities of 11 additional provinces. Phase 3 will be launched in 20057 in 700 villages and 28 municipalities in 20 additional provinces and phase 4 will be launched in 2005 to cover 4National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) of the Philippines (www.nscb.gov.ph) 5The 2000 national poverty line was Php 11,605 (www.nscb.gov.ph) 6These are the four regions represented in the impact evaluation. the remaining 53 municipalities. The total project cost of the KALAHI-CIDSS is US$182.4 million ­ the Bank finances US$100 million, the national Government finances US$31.4 million, and villagers and local governments contribute US$51 million. The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) is implementing the KALAHI-CIDSS in 16 steps for the villagers to follow (see Annex 1). Through these 16 steps, villagers prioritize their development needs, design activities, seek technical assistance, manage resources, and implement and operate development interventions. This organized experience in collective action ­ repeated three times in each targeted area ­ is designed to develop the capacity of poor villagers to help themselves and engage better with local governments and national agencies. As this capacity develops, villagers are also expected to take a more active role in improving the delivery of other pro-poor services and initiate new development activities8. More evidence is needed to suggest whether the KALAHI-CIDSS enhances not only community welfare, but also communities' ability to address and solve their own problems. The World Bank increasingly supports participatory and "bottom-up" approaches to development. This is evidenced by the growing application of Community Driven Development (CDD) approaches, giving the poor and vulnerable greater voice in development decisions and aiming to empower communities while improving services and reducing poverty. The share of Community Driven Development in the Bank's lending portfolio has increased significantly over the past years. The change is also noteworthy in East Asia9. Given the increasing prevalence of CDD, it is important to identify conditions and techniques that work well and provide insights on how to improve project performance. In line with this imperative to learn what works, the DSWD and the World Bank are committed to a careful impact evaluation of the KALAHI-CIDSS. The evaluation follows the "good practices" prescribed by experts in that it collects quality baseline data in a representative sample of both intervention groups and matched comparison groups. As the source of ex-ante information for the KALAHI- CIDSS, a quantitative baseline survey was implemented in Phase 3 municipalities in the fall of 2003. It served as the first round of a panel survey that will track 2,400 households and 132 villages before, during, and after project implementation. In future rounds, the survey will be complemented by a qualitative component to allow for triangulation of information and a richer and more detailed analysis. Objectives of Impact Evaluation: The impact evaluation assesses the impact and performance of the KALAHI-CIDSS by examining the extent to which the project's results concur with its initial objectives. The impact evaluation will inform policy makers and project implementers of the strengths and weaknesses of the innovative strategies of the KALAHI-CIDSS. Its specific objectives are to: 1. evaluate the extent to which current and future poverty is reduced in the target municipalities; 2. determine the impact of the KALAHI-CIDSS on poverty, social capital, empowerment and governance; and 3. examine the processes by which poverty has been reduced and communities have been empowered. 7Phase 3 implementation was originally scheduled to start in early 2004, but was delayed due to a reenactment of the 2004 National Budget. 8From "Philippines: Kapitbisig Laban sa Kahirapan (KALAHI-CIDSS) project" prepared by Bhuvan Bhatangar and Clifford Burkley for the Shanghai Conference on Scaling up Poverty Reduction, 2004. 9Over the past year (FY04), the Bank has consolidated its investment in CDD approaches, with overall Bank lending in support of CDD increasing from $1.7 billion in FY03 to $2.1 billion in FY04. US$ yearly investment in CDD in EAP was $204 million in FY04 and several CDD projects are expected to go to the board in FY05 (CDD briefing note for Mr. Shengman Zhang, September 2004). 2 Evaluating CDD: Managing Real World Constraints A "gold standard"10 impact evaluation requires substantial resources and evaluation planning concurrent with project design. While it is costly and time consuming to evaluate any program, the CDD approach offers some particular evaluation difficulties11. In the context of the KALAHI-CIDSS, an evaluation following all gold standard requirements would have been prohibitively expensive and practically difficult. The challenge thus was one of developing a high quality impact evaluation within the given financial, logistical and CDD-specific constraints. There are three fundamental components of impact evaluation: collection of baseline data, inclusion of comparison groups, and careful efforts to keep findings relevant for operational practitioners. To maintain rigor and relevance, the KALAHI-CIDSS impact evaluation needed to be designed based on an in-depth understanding of the CDD intervention and context in which it takes place. The experience from the KALAHI-CIDSS evaluation suggests the following for practitioners planning an evaluation of CDD: Collect baseline data prior to project implementation whenever possible. A careful evaluation requires a well defined and executed baseline survey that gathers information before the project starts. Evaluation design should ideally take place alongside project design and development. However, given logistical and resource constraints, initial thinking about impact evaluation often occurs only after the project has begun. This was largely the case with the KALAHI-CIDSS. While this presented a challenge to the quality of the design, the phasing of project implementation allowed for the collection of quality baseline data in 3rd phase municipalities before the project was launched in these municipalities. 12 Several CDD programs follow a phased approach similar to the one in the KALAHI-CIDSS. Project implementers who have missed the baseline boat should take advantage of this and recognize the possibility of collecting quality baseline data despite lack of early planning. As the source of ex-ante information for the KALAHI-CIDSS, the baseline survey was implemented in 2,400 households and 132 villages in September and October 2003. Congruent with the project's objectives, the survey describes household and community conditions in the project areas, particularly characterizing the degree of empowerment, quality of governance and poverty level of intended KALAHI-CIDSS beneficiaries. This provides benchmark data by which relative successes (and failures) can be measured later on. Table 1 shows the data collection schedule: 10The gold standard impact evaluation is explained in "CDD Impact Assessment Study: Optimizing Evaluation Design Under Constraints", by Paul Wassenich and Katherine Whiteside, World Bank 2004. Key elements of a gold standard evaluation include understanding of project and context; experimental design; baseline and follow-up surveys to establish panel data; sample covers intervention, comparison and alternative provider areas; comprehensive mixed method approach; long time horizon for sustainability issues; and statistical representation on program or national scale. 11First, the demand-driven nature of CDD projects typically involves communities organizing themselves to apply for grants to implement various projects. The lack of control of who participates and when complicates both the process of establishing intervention and comparison communities and the fielding of a baseline survey in a sufficient number of communities. Second, giving the decision-making directly to communities means that it is impossible to know beforehand exactly what types of activities will be financed. This complicates the design of baseline survey instruments. 12Every time a new KALAHI-CIDSS phase is launched, the project starts in new municipalities that have not earlier been involved in any project activities. This gives the opportunity to collect clean baseline data. Table 1: Data collection for KALAHI-CIDSS impact evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Quantitative 2003 baseline 2004 Qualitative 2005 baseline Quantitative and qualitative mid- 2006 term 2007 Quantitative and 2008 qualitative final Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Get the sampling right: intervention and comparison groups. Careful sampling is crucial for rigorous evaluation. The baseline survey for the KALAHI-CIDSS was the first round of a panel survey that will track households before, during, and after project implementation. It was conducted by the Asia-Pacific Policy Center in four provinces covered by the 3rd phase of KALAHI-CIDSS implementation: Albay in Luzon, Capiz in the Visayas, and Zamboanga del Sur and Agusan del Sur in Mindanao. The respondents were selected using multi-stage stratified random sampling. To measure the KALAHI-CIDSS's impact effectively, the survey sampled both communities that will participate in the project (the intervention group) and communities that will not participate (the comparison group). Information coming from the comparison group will help estimate counterfactual information, i.e. "What would have happened to the beneficiaries had they not been included in the KALAHI-CIDSS?" Annex 2 presents a detailed description of sampling design and matching of intervention and comparison groups. Table 2: Survey Municipalities Province Intervention municipalities Comparison municipalities Albay Pio Duran Malinao Libon Polangui Capiz Ma-ayon Pontevedra Dumarao President Roxas Zamboanga del Sur Dinas Tambulig Dumingag* Dimataling Agusan del Sur Esperanza Bayugan San Luis Veruela * The baseline survey was originally implemented in Dinas and San Pablo. However, when DSWD decided not to include San Pablo in Phase 3, the enumerators went back to the field and collected data in Dumingag, which is a match to the comparison municipality Dimataling. Use mixed methods. Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches provides a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of program impacts than either approach can generate alone. The KALAHI- CIDSS baseline survey consists of quantitative data to permit generalizations based on statistical representation, provide evidence for causal relationships, and generate objective indicators. While financial constraints did not allow for qualitative baseline data collection at the same time as the quantitative, the evaluation will use an iterative approach in which the quantitative data from the baseline 4 survey informs the design of a qualitative component to be implemented in the early stages of Phase 3 implementation.13 The qualitative data will allow exploration of concepts that are difficult to quantify, a deeper investigation of specific KALAHI-CIDSS processes, and how, if at all, the presence of the KALAHI-CIDSS leads to results on the ground. Tailor data collection to project and context. The baseline survey instrument consists of quantitative household level and village official surveys. The survey instruments were designed in close cooperation with the DSWD to respond to the operational needs of KALAHI-CIDSS project management. They were field tested three times before being finalized and translated into the local languages of the survey areas. Reputable research institutions operating in each survey area collected the data. This proved to be an efficient arrangement given the diversity in language, local conditions and political situation in the four survey provinces. Build close relationships between implementers and focal points. The experience from implementing the baseline survey underscores the value of a close working relationship between project implementers, survey implementers and World Bank focal points. KALAHI-CIDSS project management provided useful inputs throughout and offered valuable insights into the interpretation of the data. This was facilitated through regular exchanges between the World Bank, the DSWD and the APPC. Consultations and sharing of lessons from the survey was also shared regularly with the DSWD and World Bank task team colleagues during the KALAHI-CIDSS supervision missions. Household Survey: The household survey is designed to be administered in one hour. Along with identification and demographic information, it collects data about three categories of potential effects: · Poverty indicators (agricultural assets, housing and amenities, consumption and expenditure, subjective poverty measures); · Sub-project outputs (access, quality and utilization of infrastructure, particularly that most likely to be affected by KALAHI-CIDSS sub-projects, e.g., health, schooling, water and sanitation, roads); · Social Capital, Empowerment and Governance (voice, participation, inclusion, trust, groups and networks, responsiveness, transparency and information-sharing, accountability). Village Survey: The village official survey collects complementary information on these three categories as well as additional data on governance. Utilize existing knowledge to design survey instruments. The survey instruments were designed cooperatively between the Asia-Pacific Policy Center, the World Bank Social Development Department, the World Bank Manila Office, and the DSWD. They drew on lessons from existing questionnaires, including the Annual Poverty Indicator Survey and the Family Income and Expenditure Survey of the Philippines National Statistics Office, the Benchmark survey for the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, the Social Capital Integrated Questionnaire and the Social Capital Assessment Tool of the World Bank, and the Social Weather Station (SWS) Survey on poverty perceptions. Each of the questions from these instruments measure specific indicators that are needed in evaluating the impact of the KALAHI-CIDSS. Appropriate modifications were made on all questions, through consultations and field testing. 13The qualitative component is being developed at the time of writing and will be implemented in the spring of 2005 by Empowering Citizen Participation in Governance (ECPG). The terms of reference for the qualitative study is included in Annex 6. 5 Select local partners/survey implementers with care.14 The strong capacity of the APPC team that designed the evaluation was crucial to its high quality. It is important to select partners carefully - the quality of the local partners will in the end determine the effectiveness of the overall evaluation. Key tasks the partner should be able to undertake are: · Sophisticated sampling design. This requires that the team is comprised of highly skilled statisticians. · Design of survey instruments. The partner should have experience designing and implementing surveys as well as knowledge of existing instruments that can be utilized.15 · Development of field operations manuals. This manual covers all operations of the survey, including sampling, data collection, and field processing. · Recruitment and training of survey enumerators. APPC recruited reputable research institutions in each of the survey areas to implement the data collection. The enumerators received three days of intensive training, including one day of dry runs on sampling and interviewing. This careful introduction to the survey and how to ask each of the questions were reported as instrumental to their successful field work. · Data cleaning and processing. · Advanced data analysis and reporting. Box 1: Lessons learned from survey implementation · Collect baseline data · Get the sampling right · Use mixed methods · Tailor data collection to project and context · Build close relationships between implementers and focal points · Utilize existing knowledge to design survey instruments · Select local partners/survey implementers with care 14A full description of the implementation of the KALAHI-CIDSS baseline survey, covering pre-survey, survey operations, and data processing, can be found in "Baseline Survey for the Impact Evaluation of the KALAHI-CIDSS: Report on the Data Collection and Progress of the Survey", by the Asia-Pacific Policy Center. 15The questionnaires were finalized after several field tests (two different locations for the household questionnaire and more than thirty barangays for the barangay questionnaire. The questionnaires were translated to the local languages used in the survey areas. The translation was finalized after doing back-translation with the help of the survey implementers. The instruments were designed to be completed in approximately one hour to avoid interviewee fatigue. 6 Data Collected and Summary of Findings 16 The baseline survey captures household data and village conditions. The main purpose of this data is to provide baseline information for determining the impact of the KALAHI-CIDSS on poverty reduction, social capital, empowerment, and governance and for examining the processes by which poverty social capital, empowerment and governance may have changed. However, a deeper understanding of the areas in which the KALAHI-CIDSS will operate has a great value of its own and can help guide the DSWD in project implementation. The different regions in the country vary quite substantially both in terms of poverty and in the extent of empowerment and inclusive governance. This suggests that certain areas might require different strategies and focal points than others. The main findings of the baseline survey, and their implications, are summarized below. Poverty Indicators While poverty is multi-dimensional, it is often measured by consumption, expenditure, or daily calorie intake. The primary such "traditional" measure of poverty in the baseline survey is based on household expenditures. Household decisions on consumption govern the allocation of the family budget into food and non-food (medical care, education, housing, etc.). Since production and consumption decisions often are intertwined, especially in rural areas where many families do subsistence farming, the baseline survey collected data on both consumption patterns and production- and marketing practices. Ultimately, this data will allow us to assess the success of the KALAHI-CIDSS in reducing these aspects of poverty. Additionally, it will lay the groundwork for evaluating poverty targeting, or the extent to which resources reach poorer segments of the population. The areas identified as most deprived might also require additional attention during project implementation. An alternative measure of poverty that is widely used in the Philippines is self-rated poverty, or poverty from the perspective of the poor. This is measured through surveys of households' own perceptions of whether or not they are poor. It is based on where respondents would place their family on a card marked "not poor", "on the line" and "poor". Households are also asked how much money they, or a family their size who sees itself as poor, would need in order not to feel poor anymore. This poverty threshold varies from household to household based on their own perception of their poverty status relative to other households. 16This section summarizes the main findings from the baseline survey. A full overview of the findings is given in "KALAHI- CIDSS:KKB Beneficiary Profile at Year 0", by Rosemarie G. Edillon, Sharon Faye A. Piza, and Abundio Matula, Asia-Pacific Policy Center, 2004. Box 2: Differences between Intervention and Comparison Groups In an ideal matching of municipalities (i.e. that which should result from randomization of intervention and comparison areas), we would expect no significant difference between intervention and comparison groups. While the KALAHI-CIDSS intervention and comparison municipalities are relatively similar, significant differences do exist. This underscores the difficulty of finding perfectly matched comparison communities. Albay Capiz Zamboanga Agusan del Sur Del Sur I C I C I C I C Poverty incidence 80.0 76.1 67.8 71.0 89.9 82.2 81.0 74.1 (%) Monthly PCE 1,004 1,117 1,113 1,187 602 719 860 1,145 (Php) Food/total 65.2 61.1 64.7 64.6 69.9 70.9 68.3 60.1 expenditure (%) Self-rated poor 71.8 71.2 55.7 56.8 83.4 86.5 71.6 69.0 (%) Villages w. health 61.9 66.7 80.0 100.0 58.3 75.0 100.0 100.0 center (%) Elementary school 92.7 88.3 97.7 97.7 86.0 91.8 99.5 92.2 enrollment (%) HHs w. direct 37.0 35.2 24.2 22.5 4.8 15.4 8.7 18.0 water supply (%) HHs in 16.4 20.9 16.7 22.8 51.0 43.5 45.0 45.3 organizations (%) Participation in 45.3 42.3 39.5 34.8 76.1 43.7 81.9 85.4 bayanihan (%) HHs perceiving 79.5 86.1 81.3 72.6 88.6 93.6 86.0 87.9 village as generally peaceful Awareness of 92.2 87.9 74.6 84.6 98.9 96.0 93.9 97.0 village assembly (%) Participation in 63.4 47.3 26.1 38.9 94.0 80.1 59.5 73.0 barangay assembly (%) Awareness of 11.8 7.7 9.1 9.6 14.6 14.2 8.0 8.1 financial details of projects (%) Participation in 27.9 21.6 21.1 25.7 37.2 36.1 32.0 29.3 development planning (%) Awareness of BDC 15.7 11.7 2.9 2.4 14.9 18.6 2.9 4.8 (%) Generally, the conditions in the intervention groups are worse than in the comparison groups: with the exception of Capiz, poverty incidence is higher in the treatment groups and per capita expenditure is lower. This shows the effective targeting of KALAHI-CIDSS resources to poorer municipalities. Conditions in terms of social capital, empowerment, and governance vary across the sample. 8 Poverty is widespread in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities. In all dimensions of poverty, means (income/expenditure, quality of labor supply), outcomes (education, health, housing and amenities) and perception (self-rated poverty); the incidence of poverty is estimated to be very high in the sample communities. Using regional poverty lines from 2000, inflated to 2003 prices using the Consumer Price Index, poverty incidence in the KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities is 80% in Albay, 68% in Capiz, 90% in Zamboanga del Sur, and 81% in Agusan del Sur. This is significantly higher than the national average of 34%. The KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities in the sample, with the exception of Capiz, have higher poverty incidence than the provincial averages, showing effective targeting of KALAHI-CIDSS resources. This is not surprising, given that the KALAHI-CIDSS was explicitly designed to target municipalities with higher poverty incidence. However, it poses some problems for evaluation, because intervention communities are systematically measured as poorer on consumption measures than comparison communities. Because the survey will visit the same households later, it is possible to correct for initial conditions between intervention and comparison communities measured by the baseline. Further, while matched comparison municipalities do not have identical poverty incidence to intervention communities, they are still significantly poorer than the provincial averages. Table 3: Poverty in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities Albay Capiz Zamboanga Agusan del Sur del Sur Poverty Incidence17 (%) 80.0 (47.8)18 67.8 (57.4) 89.9 (43.0) 81.0 (58.0) Monthly PCE19 (Php) 1,004 1,113 602 860 Food/total expenditure (%)20 65.2 64.7 69.9 68.3 Self-rated poor (%) 71.8 55.7 83.4 71.6 The high poverty incidence in the sample provinces is supported by very low monthly per capita expenditures, ranging from Php 1,113 in the intervention group in Capiz to Php 602 in Zamboanga del Sur. The two provinces in Mindanao have significantly lower per capita expenditures than Albay and Capiz. The high food share to total expenditure further shows the widespread poverty in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities and the numbers for Zamboanga del Sur and Agusan del Sur again indicate that these two provinces are the most deprived in the sample. They also have very low consumption of income elastic food items, as recorded during the three days of diet recall. In Zamboanga del Sur, for example, more than 90% did not consume any meat products and 87% did not consume any dairy products. Most respondents are not only deprived by absolute measures, they also see themselves as poor. When asked to rate themselves as poor, non-poor or in between, a majority answered that they were poor. The largest number of self-rated poor is found in Zamboanga Del Sur, the province with the highest poverty incidence in absolute numbers. Only 1.1% and 1.5% of respondents in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities in Zamboanga del Sur and Agusan del Sur, respectively, see themselves as non-poor. 17Poverty incidence = the proportion of the population with per capita incomes below the poverty line. The poverty line used is the official poverty line for 2000, inflated to 2003 prices using the regional CPIs. 18The number in parenthesis shows the official 2000 National Statistics Coordination Board poverty incidence of the entire province (www.nscb.gov.ph). 19PCE = per capita expenditure. The average monthly PCE for the overall sample of KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities is Php909. 20Average food share to total expenditure for overall sample of KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities = 66.8% 9 Sub-project outputs/provision of services: The use of CDD approaches and the adoption of an "open menu" that allows communities to propose almost any type of sub-project can help reduce poverty by efficiently building human and physical assets at the local level. The hypothesis is that the KALAHI- CIDSS will provide services that villagers have often needed for decades, such as access roads, clean drinking water, schools, health facilities, day care centers, and electricity. It is expected that improved access to rural infrastructure such as roads, electrification and communication networks may result in faster diffusion of technology, enhancement of commercial and monetized transactions, increased mobility of rural labor, and improved access to health and education services. Ultimately, this should also result in reduced poverty and improved health and education outcomes. To assess whether the KALAHI-CIDSS is providing assets and services effectively, the baseline survey was designed to get villagers' pre-intervention status for access to neighboring villages, local markets, schools, and other public facilities; travel time and transport costs; water and sanitation; health conditions; and education outcomes. This information complements the data on poverty to provide more comprehensive profiles on the KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities. Road conditions are poor. All the KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities in the sample have relatively poor roads. While Albay has the best road conditions, more than 60 % of villages have roads of dirt or gravel and only 56% of households are accessible by road all year long. In Zamboanga del Sur, one-third of houses are never accessible by road and only 42% of houses are accessible all year round. In Agusan del Sur, almost 20% of respondents have houses that are never accessible by road and only 60% enjoy year- round access. In Capiz, less than 15% have year-round access to their houses by road, 50% have access only at certain times of the year, and 35% of households are inaccessible by road all year long. Because they inhibit communication and access to markets, health and education services, these road conditions indicate the poor conditions in the KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities. Primary health care facilities are accessible but frequently by-passed. Primary health care facilities are generally accessible and most villages have their own health stations. In Agusan del Sur, all the villages in the sample have their own health stations while this is the case for 80% of villages in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities in Capiz, 62% in Albay, and 58% in Zamboanga del Sur. The preferred health facilities are within 30 minutes away from the home of 80% of the respondents in Albay and Agusan del Sur and 75% of respondents in Capiz and Zamboanga del Sur. Despite the easy access to village health centers, they are frequently bypassed and have low utilization rates. This is especially true in Capiz, where of the individuals who sought health care in KALAHI- CIDSS municipalities, only 5 % went to either the health center or the village health station. In Albay, 46% chose the health center or village health station when visiting a health facility. The situation is quite different in the two poorer Mindanao provinces. In Zamboanga del Sur, utilization of public health facilities is quite high. The village health station or health center is the most visited facility, preferred by almost 60% of respondents, while only 12% visited private health care facilities. In Agusan del Sur, about 72% of individuals who sought health care went to the village health station/health center, while about 8% prefer private health care facilities. Interestingly, in Capiz, of the few that visited health care facilities, almost all of them appear to be satisfied with the services they get: 93% always got the needed services. In Albay, about 40% of those who visited a health facility always got the services they needed, 52% got the services sometimes, and 8% said they never got the needed services. In Mindanao, where the utilization rates are highest, people are less satisfied with the services they get. In Zamboanga del Sur, only about one fourth of those who sought care always got the services they needed, and in Agusan del Sur, about 30% of respondents say they always get the needed services when they visit a health care facility. Higher levels of poverty and limited access to alternative health care providers might explain the continued use of primary health care 10 providers in Mindanao. Improving primary facilities in these areas could have significant positive effects, especially for the poorest groups.21 Elementary schools are accessible and highly utilized. Access to elementary schools is high across the sample municipalities and most villages have their own. While elementary education in the Philippines is provided by both public and private institutions, there is very high utilization of public elementary schools. Elementary school enrollment is almost universal and education levels are generally high. In all the provinces, enrolment rates are high in the elementary level and still reasonably high in the secondary level. Higher learning institutions are, however, less accessible and college level enrolment rates drop significantly. Access to Level III water service is limited. The Philippine Government provides water through three formal sources. Level I is a point source (no piped distribution), like a spring or protected well, and serves about 15 households within 250 meters. Level II is a piped system with community faucets, serving four to six households within 25 meters. Level III is a full waterworks system with individual house connections. Access to level III water service is limited across the survey provinces, but is especially uncommon in the two Mindanao provinces. Since Level I and II water has to be stored for a longer time, it has larger risk of contamination and requires the consumer to undertake the responsibility of ensuring water quality. Overall, there is a large need for improved water supply in these provinces. Table 4: Service provision in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities Albay Capiz Zamboanga Agusan del Sur del Sur HHs accessible by road all year (%) 55.9 14.2 42.2 61.0 Villages w. health center (%) 61.9 80.0 58.3 100.0 %Elementary school enrollment 92.7 97.7 86.0 99.5 %HHs with direct water supply (own use) 37.0 24.2 4.8 8.7 Social Capital, Empowerment and Governance Some of the challenges for the KALAHI-CIDSS are to understand how the project can build on existing social dynamics and practices in the villages to facilitate participation, promote the emergence of capable leaders, and internalize transparent communication and management practices. For example, the capability of communities to organize themselves is a key variable relevant to the success of the project. In addition to harnessing existing community capacity, the KALAHI-CIDSS aims to build social capital and empower the poor through innovative strategies such as participatory planning, implementation and management of local development activities. Villagers are provided with structured opportunities to access information, express voice and influence local governance. This may lead to improved self- reliance where they will be better able to devise ways to improve their own welfare. To assess the impact of the KALAHI-CIDSS on the objectives of social capital and empowerment and whether there is an emergence and/or enhancement of a culture of participation among the targeted beneficiaries of the KALAHI-CIDSS, the baseline study collects pre-project information on items such as groups and 21Further investigation is needed to assess the reasons for bypassing of primary facilities. Possible reasons include low quality of infrastructure, dissatisfaction with personnel, availability and quality of equipment, accessibility, and type of care available. 11 networks, trust, participation in community development efforts, inclusion in priority setting and decision making, and access to information. The KALAHI-CIDSS also seeks to promote good governance and mobilization of resources to benefit the poor through the introduction of systems and procedures that encourage transparency, people's participation, and accountability. To improve governance, it is necessary to empower communities through mechanisms that increase citizen access to information, enable inclusion and participation, increase accountability of governments to citizens, and invest in local organizational capacity. The baseline survey collected information on the status of consultative and decision-making bodies in communities prior to the project, transparency and accountability mechanisms of local government, corruption, public knowledge and awareness of development activities, and public access to resources and services. This information allows one to assess the extent of participatory village and municipal governance practiced and the development orientation in villages and municipalities prior to project interventions. Villages and municipalities with little tradition of participation in governance may need extra attention during project implementation. Moreover, communities with existing good practices can be identified to serve as examples for good governance. Low membership rates in community organizations. Groups and networks are important forms of social capital and instrumental in disseminating information, reducing opportunistic behavior, and facilitating collective decision-making. The role of community organizations vary among the sampled areas. In Albay and Capiz, membership rates are low (16%), while the two Mindanao provinces have about 50% of households belonging to an organization. The most common types of organizations are socio-civic and religious organizations in Albay, religious groups and parent-teachers' associations in Capiz, socio-civic and community organizations in Zamboanga del Sur, and religious organizations and cooperatives in Agusan del Sur. There is a strong tradition of Bayanihan22/collective action in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities in Mindanao. The capacity for and tradition of collective action varies among the survey provinces. While participation in bayanihan was relatively limited in Albay and Capiz, the respondents in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities in Zamboanga del Sur and Agusan del Sur contribute significantly to bayanihan activities. In Zamboanga del Sur, more than 3 of every 4 families have participated in bayanihan, contributing an average 19.2 hours over the past six months. In Agusan del Sur, 82% participated in some sort of bayanihan activity, and the average time contribution over the past six months was 22 hours. Men contribute significantly more time to bayanihan activities than women. While the participation rate in bayanihan is almost twice the membership rate in an organization, the two are not independent of each other. Qualifying the participation in bayanihan by the amount of time a household contributed to the activity, those that belong to an organization and those that participate in village development planning are also those that contribute more time to the bayanihan activity.23 Overall, the municipalities in Zamboanga del Sur and Agusan del Sur seem to have a significantly higher capacity to act collectively and organize their communities.24 As these communities might lack in other resources (financially they are the most deprived), it will be crucial to utilize their well-developed organizational resources in project implementation. 22Bayanihan is a Filipino tradition wherein neighbors would help a relocating family by gathering under their house, and carrying it to its new location. More generally, the word bayanihan has come to mean a communal spirit that makes seemingly impossible feats possible through the power of unity and cooperation. In this context, we use bayanihan as a proxy for collective action. 23All measures are aggregated to the level of the household. 24These findings could also be due to different structures in the local economy and resulting needs for labor exchange, i.e. it could be less need for bayanihan in areas where farming is not the main source of income. 12 Greater trust in local government officials. In all the provinces residents can generally be described as guarded. In Albay and Capiz, two out of three feel that they should always be alert or someone may take advantage of them. One in three strongly perceives that people in their neighborhood do not trust each other when it comes to money matters. Trust levels are generally higher in Zamboanga del Sur and Agusan del Sur. One in four strongly agrees that most people in their village can be trusted and only 11% of respondents in Zamboanga del Sur and 16% in Agusan del Sur strongly feel that they have to be cautious or someone might take advantage of them. In all the survey provinces, there is relatively low trust in strangers and people from other ethnic groups. The most trusted groups are teachers, followed by nurses and doctors. Overall, local government officials enjoy more trust than both national government officials and strangers. This shows the importance of local government engagement to increase acceptability of the KALAHI-CIDSS, encourage participation and expand coverage of impact. Trust in these officials is expected to rise as governance improves throughout the KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities. Communities are mostly perceived as peaceful. Despite low levels of trust and problems with conflict and violence in all four survey provinces, most respondents perceive their village as relatively peaceful. Interestingly, the two provinces in Mindanao perceive themselves as most peaceful. In Zamboanga del Sur, which have had several peace and order problems with communist insurgents, Muslim secessionists, and kidnappings, 89% regard their community as very or somewhat peaceful, and no one sees their village as very violent. Also, Agusan Del Sur has had significant insurgency problems. Nevertheless, for 86% of respondents, their community is generally peaceful. Table 5: Social capital in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities Albay Capiz Zamboanga Agusan del Sur del Sur Groups and Networks %HHs in organizations 16.4 16.7 51.0 45.0 Bayanihan % participation 45.3 39.5 76.1 81.9 Time contributed (hours past 6 months) 3.7 4.9 19.2 21.7 Male 2.6 3.2 16.4 16.2 Female 1.1 1.7 2.8 5.5 Trust % HHs trust most people in village/neighborhood25 63.2 47.8 59.4 47.7 Conflict %HHs perceiving village as generally peaceful26 79.5 81.3 88.6 86.0 Participation in governance is limited. The Local Government Code of the Philippines prescribes 50% plus one household attendance in village assemblies, through which village residents will be able to articulate their needs, define their development agenda and participate in the allocation of resources towards their priorities. However, village assemblies have seldom been organized and majority attendance has been rare since the Code was passed in 1991. While most respondents in the survey provinces are 25 Shows the percentage of households that answered either "Agree somewhat" or "Agree strongly" to the statement " Most people who live in this barangay/neighborhood can be trusted". 26 Shows the percentage of households that answered "Very peaceful" or "Somewhat peaceful" to the question "In your opinion, is this barangay/neighborhood generally peaceful or marked by crime and violence". 13 aware that their villages hold assemblies, attendance is limited. The average attendance rate in village assemblies is 60%, but there are substantial provincial variations, ranging from an average of 26% in Capiz to 94% in Zamboanga del Sur. Moreover, while most LGU governments claim that the village assembly is the venue where they share information about village affairs, very few respondents have a more in-depth involvement in the affairs of their community, such as knowledge of the financial details of village projects, involvement in development planning, and awareness of the Barangay Development Council (BDC) and its functions. Many respondents rely on informal sources to get information about what the government is doing, and very few respondents cited village assemblies, government agents or community leaders among their most important sources of information. Table 6: Participation in governance in KALAHI-CIDSS municipalities Albay Capiz Zamboanga Agusan Del Sur del Sur Awareness of village assembly 92.2 74.6 98.9 93.9 Participation in village assembly 63.4 26.1 94.0 59.5 Awareness of financial details of projects 11.8 9.1 14.6 8.0 Participation in development planning 27.9 21.1 37.2 2.0 Awareness of BDC27 15.7 2.9 14.9 2.9 Another way to understand participation in villages is to investigate how decisions are made and who participates in the process. Of the four survey provinces, the villages in Zamboanga Del Sur practice the most democratic decision-making, with the majority of decisions being made by the Barangay Council. In the other provinces, the village captain is cited to make most of the decisions in the community. Few respondents say that decisions are brought before the major stakeholders, and it is only in Zamboanga del Sur that a substantial part of the respondents say that decisions are made in a village assembly with a clear majority. 27This is the percentage that could name at least one member of the BDC. 14 Table 7: Decision-making process ­ investment planning28 Albay Capiz Zamboanga Agusan Barangay Captain 33.1 57.4 19.1 22.5 Barangay Council 26.8 24.6 37.8 18.5 Municipality or government agency 12.7 1.2 5.2 5.8 Mtg. betw. village leaders and the people 10.5 13.0 7.9 4.7 Representative BA w. clear majority 10.5 2.4 18.6 15.0 BA with less than half the households 1.8 0.3 1.9 1.0 Referendum 1.1 Agreement betw. Govt. and those affected - - - 0.6 Don't know 4.7 1.2 9.6 3.6 One of the goals of the KALAHI-CIDSS is to institutionalize more democratic decision-making at the local level by introducing new and participatory processes. The key principles of the KALAHI-CIDSS include localized decision-making, where all deliberations and decisions on sub-projects are validated in the village assembly; and transparency, where every aspect of the project is revealed to the community and municipal stakeholders. These processes are new to many people, both community leaders and regular citizens. While one should expect these new processes to be challenged by those adhering to more traditional governance structures, the baseline survey reveals that many communities seem to have strong traditions of collective action and self-organizing. This brings hope for the successful implementation of community-driven development and for achieving empowerment and improved local governance. 28"When there is a decision to be made in the barangay that affects you, such as deciding between building a new school and a road, how does this usually come about?" 15 Concluding Remarks: Need for Flexibility in Operations Together with lessons learned from project implementation to date, the baseline survey for the KALAHI- CIDSS impact evaluation provides valuable information for project management. Challenging circumstances in project areas are expected, but the extent and scope of these challenges will vary from area to area. The widespread absolute poverty in Zamboanga del Sur and Agusan del Sur can hinder involvement in the project because of high costs involved with participation (i.e., the time it takes to get involved could be spent on essential income-generating activities). On the other hand, these areas have significant social capital, especially in terms of collective action and organizational capacity, which should facilitate successful implementation of the project. Albay and Capiz, where poverty is also widespread, have communities with less tradition of acting collectively. While this may present a challenge for project implementation, project management and facilitators have a chance to use the information from the baseline survey to develop strategies for overcoming this gap. A main finding of the survey is that different regions in the country vary quite substantially both in terms of poverty and in the extent of empowerment and inclusive governance. This suggests that certain areas might require different strategies and focal points than others and underscores the importance of maintaining flexibility and adaptability in KALAHI-CIDSS implementation. As large-scale programs such as the KALAHI-CIDSS institutionalize standard practices across a large number of diverse local areas, they can lose one of their main advantages: their demand responsiveness. Balancing scale and flexibility is a challenge to any large CDD program. It is recommended that the DSWD and the Bank continue discussions around whether the project as currently designed, implemented through 16 pre-determined steps, allows for such needed flexibility and adaptability and how the project can best tackle and adapt to the diversity of local conditions it will inevitably confront.29 29In the KDP in Indonesia, for example, they ended up developing a completely different operations manual for one area (Papua) because regular operational procedures did not fit local conditions there. Other areas also made operational adaptations based on local conditions and needs. 16 References Asia-Pacific Policy Center. 2003. Baseline Survey for the Impact Evaluation of the KALAHI-CIDSS ­ Sampling Design. Asia-Pacific Policy Center. Balisacan, A. M., Edillon, G. R., and Ducanes G.M.. 2002. Poverty Mapping and Targeting for KALAHI- CIDS. Asia-Pacific Policy Center. Balisacan, A.M. and Edillon, G. R.. 2003. Second Poverty Mapping and Targeting Study for Phases III and IV of KALAHI-CIDSS. Asia-Pacific Policy Center. Bhatnagar, B. and Burkley, C.. 2004. Philippines: Kapitbisig Laban sa Kahirapan (KALAHI) Project. Shanghai conference on Scaling up Poverty Reduction 2004. Edillon, R.G., Piza, S.F.A, and Matulo. A.. 2004. KALAHI-CIDSS:KKB Beneficiary Profile at Year 0. Asia-Pacific Policy Center. Wassenich, P.and Whiteside, K.. 2004. CDD Impact Assessment Study: Optimizing Evaluation Design under Constraints. World Bank Social Development Paper. CDD Anchor .2004. CDD Briefing Note for Mr. Shengman Zhang. World Bank. 17 Annex 1: The KALAHI-CIDSS30 The KALAHI-CIDSS, a World Bank-supported community-driven development project, is the flagship poverty alleviation project of the Government of the Philippines (GOP). The objectives of the KALAHI- CIDSS are to strengthen community participation in local governance and develop local capacity to design, implement, and manage development activities. These objectives are pursued through three components: (a) provision of community grants; (b) implementation support to strengthen formal and informal local institutions; and (c) monitoring and evaluation. The KALAHI-CIDSS will be implemented over six years in 4,270 villages and 177 municipalities in the 42 poorest provinces of the Philippines. The provinces are selected based on poverty data from the National Statistics and Coordination Board (NSCB). Using municipal poverty mapping developed by the Asia-Pacific Policy Center, the poorest one-fourth of all municipalities within a target province are selected to participate in the KALAHI-CIDSS. All villages in a municipality are eligible to participate in the project. Implementation of the KALAHI-CIDSS is divided into four phases. Phase 1 was launched in January 2003 and covered 201 villages in 11 municipalities of 11 provinces. Phase 2 was launched in July 2003 in 1,302 villages and 56 municipalities of 11 additional provinces. Phase 3 will be launched in 200531 in 700 villages and 28 municipalities in 20 additional provinces and phase 4 will be launched in 2005 to cover the remaining 53 municipalities. The total project cost of the KALAHI-CIDSS is US$182.4 million ­ the Bank finances US$100 million, the national Government finances US$31.4 million, and villagers and local governments contribute US$51 million. The KALAHI-CIDSS is implemented through 16 steps of social preparation and capacity building, project identification, project selection, and project implementation. Each KALAHI-CIDSS village goes through three project cycles, each consisting of six to eight months of social preparation and four to six months of project development, selection, and implementation. The 16 steps are designed to systematically mobilize the capacity of local people to prioritize their development needs, design activities, seek technical assistance, manage resources, and implement and sustain development actions. This organized experience in purposeful collective action--repeated three times in each targeted area-- develops the capacity of poor villagers to help themselves and to engage better with local governments and national agencies. As this capacity develops, villagers are also expected to take a more active role in improving the delivery of other pro-poor services. The 16 Steps of the KALAHI-CIDSS Subproject Cycle Step 1: Municipal Orientation The KALAHI-CIDSS is launched in the municipality. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is signed between the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and the municipality. A municipal interagency committee (MIAC) is created, which serves as a mechanism for interdepartmental collaboration. The area coordination team (ACT), which serves as the KALAHI-CIDSS field team in each municipality, is deployed two months prior to the municipal launch. 30This annex draws heavily on the KALAHI-CIDSS-CIDSS primer produced by the DSWD and the paper "Philippines: KALAHI-CIDSS project" prepared by Bhuvan Bhatnagar and Clifford Burkley for the Shanghai Conference on Scaling up Poverty Reduction, 2004. 31Phase 3 implementation was originally scheduled to start in early 2004, but was delayed due to a reenactment of the 2004 National Budget. 18 Step 2 Village Orientation : The first village assembly is held in every village within the municipality. Villagers are briefed on the KALAHI-CIDSS. Volunteers for conducting a participatory situation analysis (PSA) are selected by their peers. Step 3: Participatory Situation Analysis Volunteers discuss development issues affecting the community and prioritize them. The final output is the village action plan, including the top priority problem to be submitted for KALAHI-CIDSS funding. Step 4: Validation of PSA Results A second village assembly is held. The PSA results are validated by the entire village. The project preparation team (PPT) and village representative team (VRT) are elected from among the villagers. Step 5: Criteria-Setting for Ranking of Subprojects VRTs attend a workshop where the rules and subproject ranking criteria for the municipal intervillage forum (MIVF) are decided by them. These include poverty focus, sustainability, and local contributions. Step 6: Preparation of Subproject Concepts PPTs, VRTs, MIAC members, municipal technical staff, and local nongovernmental organizations attend a workshop on subproject concept preparation. As a result, the subproject concept forms are prepared for each village through stakeholder consultations. Local resource mobilization strategy is formulated to generate contributions from villagers, local government, and line agencies. Step 7: Validation of Subproject Concepts A third village assembly is held. Each PPT publicly presents the subproject concept form for validation by the entire village. Step 8: Finalization of Subproject Concepts A workshop for all PPTs is held for refining the subproject concept based on inputs from step 7. Presentation materials to be used in the first MIVF are prepared. Step 9: Ranking of Subproject Concepts by the Municipal Intervillage Forum The first MIVF is held. PPTs present the subproject concepts and VRTs rank them. A resolution from the MIVF indicating the ranking as well as indicative funds allocated to prioritized subprojects is signed by all the VRTs. The mayor chairs the MIVF, but does not vote. Step 10: Feedback on the Results of Municipal Intervillage Forum Ranking A fourth village assembly is held. The results from the first MIVF are presented to the village. The prioritized villages elect the members of the village subproject management committee. Step 11: Formulation of Detailed Subproject Proposals Village teams assisted by the ACT and local government staff prepare the draft detailed subproject proposal, which includes technical specifications and detailed cost estimates. Nonprioritized villages are also encouraged to undertake technical preparation. Step 12: Validation of Detailed Subproject Proposals A fifth village assembly is held. The draft detailed subproject proposal is publicly presented to the entire village for validation. 19 Step 13: Approval of Detailed Subproject Proposals by the Municipal Intervillage Forum A second MIVF is held. The detailed proposals are presented and assessed by the MIVF. After verification of the required supporting documents, the subprojects are finally approved for funding. Verification requires a commitment letter from the MIAC, signed by the mayor, for supply of software aspects, e.g., staffing. Step 14: Pre-implementation Workshop Village teams, which are attached to the village development council, are trained in construction techniques, reporting, procurement, financial management, and operations and maintenance (O&M). Concerned local government staff also receive training. Step 15: Subproject Implementation The subproject is implemented by the village volunteer teams. During implementation, a detailed O&M plan is required for the release of the second installment of funds. Step 16: Subproject Operation and Maintenance The O&M Plan is implemented by the village. An O&M monitoring team comprising municipal officers and the ACT tracks progress. Main Design Features The KALAHI-CIDSS has benefited from a dozen years of decentralization in the Philippines and is receiving strong support from the highest levels in Government and from civil society. For many decades in the Philippines, community workers, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), academics, and government bureaucrats have pioneered and practiced participatory approaches--and the KALAHI- CIDSS is building on this local knowledge and experience. The KALAHI-CIDSS uses many of the core elements of the Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (CIDSS), a 10-year-old community development program successfully implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). A decade of learning-by-doing CDD means that the DSWD, and its staff, are well equipped to be the KALAHI-CIDSS's executing agency. Using a series of cross visits and video conferences, project staff also learned valuable lessons from the experience of the Bank-supported Kecamatan Development Program in Indonesia. The KALAHI-CIDSS is using a phased learning-by-doing approach to avoid errors made in fixed long- term planning. The DSWD implements the project in three phases: (a) pilot, (b) demonstration, (c) and scaling up. The pilot, which was deliberately kept small, included only six villages in one municipality. It tested the participatory subproject process and provided vital information to implementers about what worked and what did not. The process was reworked and operation manuals revised. Then the project was expanded to 201 villages in 11 representative municipalities across the country. During the demonstration phase, the DSWD fine-tuned project mechanisms, validated that risks are manageable, and confirmed that the project is likely to have a satisfactory development impact. Sufficient experience was gained to start a nationwide roll-out of the project in 1,304 villages in 56 municipalities. Using well-defined and transparent poverty criteria, the KALAHI-CIDSS systematically targets the poorest municipalities in the poorest provinces. This reduces the risk of political targeting. Because it does not target individual poor households within selected municipalities, the focus of the KALAHI- CIDSS's organizing unit is shifted away from individuals to villages and communities. Broad community engagement and collective support is required to influence local governance. 20 The KALAHI-CIDSS disburses community grants against approved plans, rather than actual expenditures, which poor villagers can ill afford upfront. Local people, not project staff or government officials, approve funding proposals, subject to process requirements. The DSWD then directly transfers funds from its special account to the end users, usually about two weeks after receiving approved village proposals. Disbursements are not channeled through intermediary accounts or through local governments where leakages are endemic. The flow of direct funds in the KALAHI-CIDSS is much faster than in traditional projects, and is less prone to leakages. Direct funding also builds downward accountability and the confidence and capacity of villagers to handle their own funds. In addition KALAHI-CIDSS funding is modular, allowing the project to move around problem villages and municipalities without affecting good performers. The KALAHI-CIDSS does not impose a fixed percentage of local contributions on villagers and local governments. The design assumption is that local contributions will be higher when considered a criterion for subproject selection in the inter-village prioritization process rather than pre-set as minimum or maximum. However, to avoid favoring better off villages, other criteria, such as poverty focus and social acceptability, are also used to prioritize community projects for KALAHI-CIDSS funding. While villagers undeniably have local knowledge, they are not technical experts in hydrology, medical science, or civil engineering. Thus, CDD projects often suffer from poor technical design, inferior construction quality, and inadequate operation and maintenance. To address this in the KALAHI-CIDSS, links are established between villagers and technical providers. Local people have easy access to technical assistance from KALAHI-CIDSS engineers, local government staff, local universities, and the private sector. They are provided with a technical assistance fund to buy expertise, if required. Villagers receive regular training so they can better understand technical options and make informed choices. The challenges are to strike the appropriate balance between local and technical knowledge, and to ensure that the costs of technical expertise are offset by the gains in terms of quality and sustainability of KALAHI- CIDSS infrastructure. Sustainability is also strengthened by ensuring that KALAHI-CIDSS hardware is accompanied by complementary software, e.g., KALAHI-CIDSS-funded school buildings have textbooks, blackboards, and teachers; and health centers have medicines, midwives, and doctors. Horizontal integration is assured by an active interdepartmental coordination mechanism, the municipal interagency committee (MIAC), which was tested and refined in the CIDSS. In every KALAHI-CIDSS municipality, the MIAC is chaired by the mayor and comprises the heads of all local government departments. Local representatives of national agencies, NGOs, and donor institutions operating in the municipality also participate. The MIAC meets every two weeks to discuss KALAHI-CIDSS progress, and to determine and track contributions of each department/agency to KALAHI-CIDSS projects, including staff, salaries, and other recurrent costs. This horizontal integration is necessary for community investments requiring interdepartmental coordination. The mayor formalizes the MIAC commitment regarding supply of software aspects through an official letter, before KALAHI-CIDSS funding for a community project is approved. In every municipality, the KALAHI-CIDSS will be implemented for three years. At the end of that period, it is hoped that the local government will use "the KALAHI-CIDSS way" to make and implement more and more development decisions. To realize this objective, the KALAHI-CIDSS uses a more intensive integration approach with the local government at entry, than do traditional CDD projects. The KALAHI-CIDSS cycle in each municipality is synchronized, to the extent possible, with the local government planning and budgeting cycle. Thus community plans prepared in the KALAHI-CIDSS are better integrated with official village and municipal development plans. This also facilitates deployment of local government development funds for KALAHI-CIDSS investments. Each KALAHI-CIDSS municipality is also assisted to prepare a two-year plan detailing how it will institutionalize KALAHI- 21 CIDSS processes. A concrete output of the institutionalization plan is the passage of local legislation adopting KALAHI-CIDSS processes as a planning and resource allocation tool for the local government. Some municipalities in the demonstration phase have already passed this local legislation. Early Results After KALAHI-CIDSS implementation began with a focus on only six villages in early 2003, it has now increased to 1,505 and more than 700 villages have received KALAHI-CIDSS funding to date. Using a competitive process, villagers select projects from an open menu, and prioritize them for funding. The projects currently being implemented have estimated economic rates of return of 17­53%, very high for social development projects and indicating the responsiveness of the projects. The KALAHI-CIDSS is providing services that villagers have often needed for decades: access roads, clean drinking water, schools, health facilities, day-care centers, and electricity. Local cost sharing in the KALAHI-CIDSS appears to be the highest among official development assistance (ODA)-funded projects in the Philippines. The total cost of community projects funded to date is just over US$8 million. About 40% is contributed by villagers and their local governments, demonstrating the project's ability to trigger high local resource mobilization. The community projects appear to save both time and money in providing basic services to the poor. Construction of KALAHI-CIDSS infrastructure takes from two to six months. Construction costs are estimated to be 25­30% lower than standard construction costs for the same infrastructure through national government agencies and private contractors. The projects also generate paid employment for the villagers in construction. The KALAHI-CIDSS has trained thousands of villagers in project planning, technical design, financial management, and procurement, building a cadre of future leaders at the local level. Most important, the project is providing villagers with structured opportunities for accessing information, expressing their opinions, and influencing local governance. Looking Forward The KALAHI-CIDSS is still a young project and early achievements need to be strengthened and sustained over time. This is being done through strict adherence to KALAHI-CIDSS rules and ongoing constituency-building efforts. The results will be measured through the impact evaluation. The early success of the project has been partly due to strict adherence to agreed rules, such as objective poverty targeting, the use of the "common fund" concept, and open competition. These practices reduce the risk of elite capture. For example, all cash contributions to the project are deposited in one bank account managed by the community, and are subject to regular KALAHI-CIDSS procedures. This limits the ability of local elites to distort decision making through comparison over resources. More of the same is needed in the future. KALAHI-CIDSS village volunteers and field staff have been key to the success of the project. They have performed their tasks commendably under challenging conditions. And even if local officials do not control KALAHI-CIDSS decisions and funds, they play a strong role in project implementation. Therefore, networks among the three major groups of stakeholders--village volunteers, field staff, and local officials--are being established to enhance grassroots support for the project. As a first step, the 22 DSWD has organized a series of regional workshops, followed by a national workshop, which brought key stakeholders together to share experience and develop mechanisms for future networking. These networks are expected to keep the project going even as the local officials themselves change. The KALAHI-CIDSS management team is also continuing to expand ownership of the project among DSWD staff, as the project is a mainstreamed program, not an adjunct operation. These measures should ensure sustainability of the project within DSWD beyond the current leadership. The DSWD is committed to a careful evaluation of the KALAHI-CIDSS to determine the impacts of the project on community empowerment, local governance, and poverty reduction. This impact evaluation collects "with-without" data in a representative sample of both intervention groups and matched comparison groups. As a source of ex-ante information for the KALAHI-CIDSS, a quantitative baseline survey was implemented in municipalities in 2003, where the project had not yet started. This served as the first round of a panel survey that will also track 2,400 households in 132 villages during and after project implementation. Over time, the results will confirm whether the KALAHI-CIDSS has lived up to its early promise, or not. 23 Annex 2: Sampling Design The baseline survey for the impact evaluation of the KALAHI-CIDSS was the first round of a panel survey that will track households before, during, and after project implementation. It was conducted by the Asia-Pacific Policy Center in each of the three geographical areas of the Philippines, covering four provinces included in Phase 3 of KALAHI-CIDSS implementation: Albay in Luzon, Capiz in the Visayas, and Zamboanga del Sur and Agusan del Sur in Mindanao. The respondents for the surveys were selected using multi-stage stratified random sampling. To measure the KALAHI-CIDSS's impact effectively, the survey sampled both communities that will participate in the project (the intervention group) and communities that will not participate (the comparison group). Information coming from the comparison group will help estimate counterfactual information, i.e., "What would have happened to the beneficiaries had they not been included in the KALAHI-CIDSS?" Sampling of Municipalities The sampling design for the impact evaluation mirrored the KALAHI-CIDSS targeting procedures: with detailed information about the process used to select participant municipalities, the survey could establish representative intervention and comparison groups. Implemented in the 42 poorest provinces in the country, the KALAHI-CIDSS covers municipalities belonging to the bottom 25% in each province. The selection is based on a poverty ranking developed by Balisacan et al.32 For the purpose of the baseline survey, intervention municipalities were selected from this bottom quartile. A municipality was excluded from the intervention sample if: 1) it will not participate in Phase 3 of KALAHI-CIDSS implementation; 2) it has unique characteristics that would make it impossible to identify appropriately matched comparison communities; or 3) it presents implementation difficulties that would make it particularly dangerous for survey teams to work in the area. Sampling from participating, non-excluded municipalities in each of the country's geographic areas, the following intervention municipalities were identified: Pio Duran and Libon in Albay; Ma-ayon and Dumarao in Capiz; Dinas and San Pablo in Zamboanga del Sur; and Esperanza and San Luis in Agusan del Sur. Comparison Municipality Selection Having selected the intervention municipalities, each was matched with a similar municipality that will not participate in the KALAHI-CIDSS. To identify these comparison municipalities, a cluster analysis was done of all municipalities per province. A statistical method called cluster analysis was used to cluster municipalities within each province according to their observed characteristics. Many impact evaluations use propensity score matching to identify comparison communities similar to intervention communities. KALAHI-CIDSS's targeting procedures made classic propensity score matching techniques impossible. The poverty ranking results from regression analysis that predicts a municipal poverty score based on indicators on human capital, housing and amenities, and accessibility conditions. Only those municipalities in the bottom quartile of the poverty ranking are eligible to participate in the KALAHI-CIDSS. This targeting procedure creates a very distinct cut-off for the probability that a municipality will participate in the program. If its poverty indicators lead a municipality to be ranked in the bottom quartile of a province, then the municipality is almost certain to participate. If those indicators 32A full description of the poverty mapping for the KALAHI-CIDSS is described in "Poverty Mapping and Targeting for KALAHI-CIDSS-CIDSS" by Arsenio M. Balisacan, Rosemarie G. Edillon, and Geoffrey M. Ducanes and in "Second Poverty Mapping and Targeting Study for Phases III and IV of KALAHI-CIDSS-CIDSS" by Arsenio M. Balisacan and Rosemarie G. Edillon. 24 rank it above the 25 percentile line, it is certain not to participate. This procedure clearly distinguishes participants from non-participants, based on observed indicators. Thus, one cannot match intervention and comparison municipalities based on similarities in the probability that they will participate in the KALAHI-CIDSS: when we seek to generate a propensity score based on observed indicators, the targeting algorithm implies that all participating municipalities have propensity scores of 1 and all non- participating municipalities have propensity scores of 0. Hence, in an extreme example of the "common support problem", there is no way to match municipalities based on the "nearest propensity score neighbor". Because it is non-parametric, the cluster analysis allows us to identify the econometric model based on differences in the functional form of the poverty ranking versus the clustering. Further, the cluster analysis includes two additional variables (population and land area of the municipality) that allow additional identification from exclusion restrictions. The cluster analysis allows us to group similar communities without using a propensity score. It is then possible to match each sampled municipality that participates in the KALAHI-CIDSS with a similar one that does not. The variables used for the cluster analysis are primarily the same as those used in the municipal mapping and targeting developed by Balisacan, Edillon, and Ducanes: Table A2.1: Component Variables of Poverty Ranking Weight Proportion of households with electricity 4.41 Proportion of households with water-sealed toilets 2.83 Proportion of households with access to level III water systems 4.56 Proportion of houses with roofs made of strong materials 4.27 Proportion of houses with walls made of strong materials 7.47 Proportion of household members aged 0-6 years old 23.70 Proportion of household members aged 7-14 years 18.05 Proportion of household members aged 15-24 years 5.96 Proportion of household members aged 25 and over 0.08 Educational attainment of all members in the family relative to potential (based on age profile) 8.28 Density of good village roads that are passable all year round 10.00 Distance from municipality center to the "center of trade" 10.00 Two additional variables are included in the cluster analysis: the population and land area of the municipality. These variables are important factors when determining the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) of a municipality. The IRA makes up more than 80% of the financial resources available to the local government unit. An "agglomerative hierarchical procedure" was followed to produce the clusters: it begins with as many clusters as observations. Then, clusters are systematically merged with those closest in Pythagorean distance along the various dimensions specified by relevant indicators. The selected comparison 25 municipalities are those that belong to the same cluster as their respective intervention municipalities. Where the cluster analysis resulted in more than one option for the comparison municipality, other information such as population, areas and topography was used as a basis for selection. Two interventions and two comparison municipalities were selected per province (see Table A2.2). The results of the cluster analysis are reported in tables A2.3-A2.6 and the outcomes of the analyses are summarized in the dendograms in figures A2.1-A2.4. Table A2.2: Survey Municipalities Province Intervention municipalités Comparison municipalities Albay Pio Duran Malinao Libon Polangui Capiz Ma-ayon Pontevedra Dumarao President Roxas Zamboanga del Sur Dinas Tambulig Dumingag* Dimataling Agusan del Sur Esperanza Bayugan San Luis Veruela * The baseline survey was originally implemented in Dinas and San Pablo. However, when DSWD decided not to include San Pablo in Phase 3, the enumerators went back to the field and collected data in Dumingag, which is a match to the comparison municipality Dimataling. Sampling of Villages The survey used two stage stratified probability-proportional-to-size sampling to draw respondent households. First stage units are the villages. The villages in each selected municipality were stratified into three groups according to proximity to the población (municipal center). The first 1/3 in the ranking comprise stratum 1 (the villages nearest the poblacion), the next 1/3 stratum 2 and the last 1/3 comprise stratum 3. One quarter of the total number of villages were randomly selected from each stratum using probabilities proportional to size with number of households in the village as measure of size. The poblacion village was excluded from the sample. Between 6 and 12 villages were selected per municipality, adding up to a total of 132 villages in the sample (see full list of the survey areas in tables A2.7-A2.10). Sampling of Households In the second stage, households were drawn using systematic sampling. The recommended sample size of 120-150 households per municipality allows for an error of 0.10 away from the mean with 95 percent confidence. The sample size was proportionately allocated to the villages selected in the municipality with 20 percent over-sampling to allow for sample attrition in the follow-up surveys. Sampling of households was done in the field using systematic random sampling with the households numbered according to proximity to the village center. 26 Table A2.3: Cluster history Albay NCL Clusters Joined FREQ SPRSQ RSQ 14 Malilipot Tiwi 2 0.0001 1.00 13 Bacacay Malinas 2 0.0001 1.00 12 Guinobatan Oas 2 0.0001 1.00 11 CL13 Manito 3 0.0002 1.00 10 Jovellar Pio Duran 2 0.0004 .999 9 CL12 CL14 4 0.0005 .999 8 CL10 Rapu-Rapu 3 0.0013 .997 7 Camalig Polangui 2 0.0020 .995 6 CL11 CL8 6 0.0051 .990 5 Daraga Santo Domingo 2 0.0057 .985 4 CL5 CL9 6 0.0273 .957 3 CL7 Libon 3 0.1059 .851 2 CL6 CL4 12 0.1148 .737 1 CL2 CL3 15 0.7367 .000 27 Figure A2.1 Results of the Cluster Analysis 28 Table A2.4: Cluster history Capiz NCL Clusters joined FREQ SPRSQ RSQ 15 Dumalag Mambusao 2 0.0007 .999 14 Ma-ayon Pontevedra 2 0.0012 .998 13 Panay Panitan 2 0.0015 .997 12 Dao Ivisan 2 0.0016 .995 11 CL15 Pilar 3 0.0028 .992 10 Cuartero CL13 3 0.0028 .989 9 CL12 President 3 0.0029 .987 Roxas 8 CL14 Tapaz 3 0.0032 .983 7 CL10 CL8 6 0.0067 .977 6 CL11 Jamindan 4 0.0080 .969 5 CL9 Dumarao 4 0.0088 .960 4 Sapian Sigma 2 0.0228 .937 3 CL7 CL6 10 0,0315 .906 2 CL3 CL5 14 0.1962 .709 1 CL2 CL4 16 0.7093 .000 29 Figure A2.2 Results of the Cluster Anlaysis 30 Table A2.5 Cluster History Zamboga del Sur NCL Clusters Joined FREQ SPRSQ RSQ 25 Dimataling SanPablo 2 0.0000 1.00 24 Pitogo Tabina 2 0.0000 1.00 23 Labangan Mahayag 2 0.0000 1.00 22 CL24 Sominot(DonM.Marcos) 3 0.0000 1.00 21 CL22 SanMiguel 4 0.0000 1.00 20 CL25 Kumalarang 3 0.0000 1.00 19 Josefina RamonMagsaysay 2 0.0000 1.00 18 Aurora CL23 3 0.0000 1.00 17 CL20 CL21 7 0.0000 1.00 16 Dinas Tambulig 2 0.0000 1.00 15 CL17 VincenzoA.Sagun 8 0.0000 1.00 14 Guipos CL19 3 0.0000 1.00 13 Lapuyan Midsalip 2 0.0000 1.00 12 CL15 CL13 10 0.0001 1.00 11 CL18 CL16 5 0.0001 .999 10 CL12 CL14 13 0.0001 .999 9 Bayog Molave 2 0.0002 .999 8 CL10 Tigbao 14 0.0002 .999 7 CL11 Dumingag 6 0.0002 .999 6 CL7 CL8 20 0.0004 .998 5 CL6 CL9 22 0.0020 .996 4 Dumalinao Margosatubig 2 0.0032 .993 3 CL5 Lakewood 23 0.0076 .986 2 CL3 CL4 25 0.0941 .891 1 CL2 Tukuran 26 0.8914 .000 31 Figure A2.3 Results of the Cluster Anlaysis 32 Table A2.6: Cluster history Agusan del Sur NCL Clusters Joined FREQ SPRSQ RSQ 13 La Paz Loreto 2 0.0001 1.00 12 Bunawan Rosario 2 0.0002 1.00 11 San Luis Veruela 2 0.0005 .999 10 Esperanza CL13 3 0.0006 .999 9 CL12 CL11 4 0.0006 .998 8 CL9 Prosperidad 5 0.0009 .997 7 Bayugan Trento 2 0.0011 .996 6 CL8 CL10 8 0.0029 .993 5 CL7 CL6 10 0.0058 .987 4 Sibagat Talacogon 2 0.0084 .979 3 San Francisco CL4 3 0.0302 .949 2 CL3 Sta. Josefa 4 0.2337 .715 1 CL5 CL2 14 0.7150 .000 33 Figure A2.4 Results of the Cluster Anlaysis 34 Table A2.7: Albay Survey Areas Number of Number of Barangay households Barangay households sampled sampled Pio Duran Malinao Barangay II (Pob.) 18 Baybay 19 Barangay I (Pob.) 38 Bariw 14 Binodegahan 27 Tuliw 20 Cuyaoyao 16 Libod 11 Flores 11 Tanawan 19 Marigondon 12 Tagoytoy 26 Palapas 12 Malolos 10 Rawis 8 Ogob 17 Tibabo 8 Soa 14 Libon Polangui Zone IV (Pob.) 12 Gabon 27 San Agustin 14 Sugcad 27 Bacolod 8 Mendez 8 Bonbon 22 Balangibang 13 San Vicente 16 Napo 21 Burabod 15 Santa Cruz 5 Buga 21 Maynaga 10 San Jose 17 Magpanambo 11 Malabiga 6 Buyo 7 Caguscos 5 Lourdes 6 San Ramon 5 Anopol 8 Talin-talin 9 Maysua 7 35 Table A2.8: Capiz Survey Areas Number of Number of Barangay households Barangay households sampled sampled Ma-ayon Pontevedra Palaguian 24 Ilaya (Pob.) 20 Cabungahan 29 Sublangon 38 New Guia 24 Linampongan 23 Quevedo 24 Jolongajog 39 Maalan 18 Intungcan 22 Canapian 31 Cabugao 7 Dumarao President Roxas Codingle 16 Aranguel 19 Guinotos 9 Pantalan 20 Ongoli Ilaya 11 Cabugcabug 21 Tinaytayan 16 Ibaca 19 San Juan 11 Culilang 5 Dangula 14 Santo Nino 2 Gibato 26 Vizcaya 28 Astorga 34 Goce 11 Tina 14 Badiangon 25 36 Table A2.9: Zamboanga Del Sur Survey Areas Number of Number of Barangay households Barangay households sampled sampled Dinas Tambulig West Migpulao 18 Balucot 24 Legarda 1 30 Tungawan 32 Sumpotan 28 Balugo 40 Legarda 2 30 San Jose 25 East Migpulao 31 Angeles 17 Beray 13 Maya-Maya 12 Dumingag Dimataling Upper Landing 31 Bacayawan 26 Mahayahay 30 Mahayag 23 Ditulan 26 Sumbato 13 Senote 21 Libertad 31 Tagun 12 Baluno 18 Salvador 30 Binuay 39 37 Table A2.10: Agusan Del Sur Survey Areas Number of Number of Barangay households Barangay households sampled sampled Esperanza Bayugan Piglawigan 12 Maygatasan 25 Dakutan 23 Santa Irene 17 Remedios 11 Hamogaway 10 Nato 15 Noli 22 Catmonon 11 Tagubay 5 Labao 5 Mabuhay 11 Oro 8 Calaitan 14 Milagros 6 Pinagalaan 8 Aguinaldo 5 Mahayag 4 Guadalupe 26 Getsemane 3 San Toribio 17 Berseba 15 Anolingan 11 Mt. Carmel 17 San Luis Veruela Sta. Ines 24 San Gabriel 20 Muritula 12 La Fortuna 44 Don Alejandro 47 Sinobong 35 Baylo 17 Del Monte 29 Anislagan 32 Sisimon 13 Mahagsay 18 Anitap 9 38 Annex 3: Household Survey LCS Form 1 FINAL LIVING CONDITION SURVEY Interview Schedule for Family Good (morning, afternoon), I'm _________________ and we are conducting a survey on your community. The purpose of this survey is to find out about your living conditions. The accuracy of the results of the whole survey will depend on your sincere and precise answers. Your input would benefit future planning and monitoring of programs. The information you give to us will be kept confidential. You and your household members will not be identified by name or address in any of the reports we plan to write. Thank you for your participation. A. IDENTIFICATION & OTHER INFORMATION FIELD COMPARISON Name of Interviewer __________________________ Date Time Started Remarks Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3 Survey Phase: 1 Baseline 4 Year 4 2 Year 2 5 Year 5 3 Year 3 6 Year 6 IDENTIFICATION CODES Region: ________________________________________ Province: ________________________________________ Municipality: ________________________________________ Barangay: ________________________________________ Name of Household Head: ________________________________________ Name of Respondent: ________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Type of respondent: 1 Original 2 Replacement 39 Reasons for replacement _______________________________________ 1 Original respondent migrated 2 Original respondent not at home. 3 Original respondent not cooperative. Ethno-linguistic Group: ________________________________________ Religion: ________________________________________ 40 B. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS F ALL FAMILY MEMBERS 10 YEARS OLD AND A OVER M I L What is Y What is _____'s FAMILY MEMBERS AS OF _____'s GENDER age as of CHECK IF Marital M DATE OF VISIT relation to 1 M last 10 YEARS (Civil) E (Last name, first name) the family 2 F birthday? OLD OR status M head? OVER B E R Enter Code (1) (1a) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (2) (3) (4) (6) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Codes for Column 2 Codes for Column 6 Relationship to Family Head Marital (Civil) Status 1 Head 1 Single 2 Spouse 2 Married 3 Son/daughter 3 Widowed 4 Son-in-law/daughter-in-law 4 Divorced/ Separated 5 Grandson/Granddaughter 5 Unknown 6 Father/Mother 7 Other Relatives 41 C. OUTPUT INDICATORS 1a. Health Status F ALL FAMILY MEMBERS A M Did get sick during What Did _____ see any Which health I the last six months? Type of sickness health practitioner facility (ies) did L did _____ have during the past six ______ visit during Y during the last six months? the last six months? months? M 1. yes A. yes E 2. no, skip to (multiple entries) B. no, skip to (multiple entries) M col. 9 col. 1b B E Enter Codes R (1) (7) (8) (9) (10) (7) (8) (9) (10) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Codes for Columns 8 Codes for Column 10 (Type of Sickness) (Health Facility) 1 Headache 11 Diuresis 1 Government hospital 2 Flu/fever 12 Anemia 2 Private hospital 3 Abdominal pain/ diarrhea 13 Peptic or gastric ulcer 3 Private clinic 4 Colds/cough 14 Goiter 4 Rural health unit (RHU) 5 Asthma 15 Hypertension 5 Health center 6 Ascariasis 16 Heart disease 6 Barangay health station (BHS) 7 Diabetes 17 Pulmonary TB/ primary complex 7 NGO sponsored medical mission 8 Gouty arthritis/ rheumatism 18 Epilepsy 8 Gov't. sponsored medical campaign/ 9 Hyper cholesterolemia 19 Cancer mission 10 Skin diseases 20 Others, specify 9 Others, specify ______________ ______________ 42 1b. How do you travel to the health facility? 1 By walking 2 By bus, car, jeep 3 By motorcycle/ tricycle 4 By bicycle/pedicab 8 Not applicable 1c. How long does it take you to get from your home to the health facility? 1 < 15 minutes 2 15-30 minutes 3 30-60 minutes 4 > 1 hour 8 Not applicable 1d. Do you get the needed services whenever you visit the health facility? 1 Always 2 Sometimes 3 Never 8 Not applicable 43 2. Schooling Status 3 YEARS OLD AND OVER 6-24 YEARS OLD F A Has___ What is the Is ____ What What How does How long Why Check currently grade or type of ____ does it is ____ not M if 3 yearever highest year is school travel to take ____ attending attended educational attending I old or school? ____ is school? to reach school? above school? attainment currently currently the L completed attending? attending? school? Y 1 Yes by _____? 2 No, (If the M If age is answer 6-24, is code E skip to 1 Yes "1" M col. 18 2 No, go to B skip col. 17 to E col. 18 Enter Code R (1) (11) (11a) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (11a) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) 01 02 03 04 05 06 Codes for Columns 12 and 14 Codes for Column 15 Codes for Column 18 (Grade/Year completed or currently attending) Type of School Reason for not attending 1 Public school 00 No Grade Post Secondary 2 Private 1 Schs. are very far/ 01 Nursery/ 26 1st Year non-sectarian no school w/in Kinder/Preparatory 27 2nd Year 3 Private sectarian barangay 28 3rd Years 2 No regular Elementary 29 Graduate, specify course Codes for Column 16 transport 11 Grade I Means of going to school 3 High cost of educ/ 12 Grade II College 1 By walking parents can't afford 13 Grade III 31 1st year 2 By bus, car, jeep exp. 14 Grade IV 32 2nd year 3 By motorcycle/ 4 illness/disability 15 Grade V 33 3rd year tricycle 5 Housekeeping 16 Grade VI/VII 34 4th year or higher 4 By bicycle/pedicab 6 Employment/ 35 College Graduate, specify looking for work Secondary course Codes for Column 17 7 Lack of personal 21 1st Year Post Grad 1 <15 mins. interest 22 2nd Year 41 With some units earned 2 16 to 30 mins. 8 Can't cope w/ 23 3rd Year or enrolled in 3 31 to 59 mins. school work 24 4th Year/ 42 Graduate, specify 4 >1 hr. 9 Finished schooling HS Graduate Ph.D./Master's 10 Others, specify 99 Don't know 44 3. Water and Sanitation Water 3a. What is the family's main source of water? 1 Own use, faucet, community water system 2 Own use, tube/ piped well 3 Shared, faucet, community water system 4 Shared, tube/ piped well 5 Dug well 6 Spring, river, stream, etc. 7 Rain 8 Peddler 9 Others (specify) _____________________ 3b. Since when? (Specify year) 3c. Is there any rain water catchment in the area? (to be asked if answer in 3a is 7) 1 Yes 2 No 3d. Under what project was it acquired? 1 Barangay project (no outside assistance/ bayanihan) 2 Municipality project 3 Self help 4 KALAHI-CIDSS-CIDSS 5 KALAHI-CIDSS 6 CIDSS 7 Others, specify _____________________ (including combination of the above) 9 Do not know 3e. How far is this from your house? (to be asked if answer 3a is 3-7) 1 Within premises 2 Outside premises but 250 meters or less 3 251 meters or more 9 Don't know 3f. Do you consider this water to be safe for drinking? 1 Yes ð proceed to 3h 2 No 9 Don't know/not sure 3g. Where do you get your drinking water? 1 Within premises 2 Outside premises but 250 meters or less 3 251 meters or more 9 Don't know 45 3h. Do you experience difficulties in fetching water? 1 Yes 2 No ð go to question 3j 3i. If yes, what sort of difficulties? 1 Distance of facility 2 Insufficient water supply 3 Combination of 1 and 2 4 Others, (specify) ______________ Sanitation 3j. What kind of toilet facility does the family use? 1 Water sealed 2 Closed pit 3 Open pit 4 Others (pail system, etc.) 5 Common or None ð go to question 4a 3k. Since when? (Specify year) 3l. Under what project was it acquired? 1 Barangay project (no outside assistance/ bayanihan) 2 Municipality project 3 Self help 4 KALAHI-CIDSS-CIDSS 5 KALAHI-CIDSS 6 CIDSS 7 Others, specify _____________________ (including combination of the above) 9 Do not know 4. Roads, communication and access to services 4a. How long does it take you to reach the nearest working post office? 1 Less than 15 minutes 2 15-30 minutes 3 31-60 minutes 4 More than one hour 9 Do not know 4b. How long does it take you to get to the nearest working telephone? 1 Telephone in the house 2 Less than 15 minutes 3 15-30 minutes 4 31-60 minutes 5 More than 1 hour 9 Do not know 46 4c. Specify what kind. 1 Land line 2 Cell phone 3 Combination of 1 and 2 4 Others, specify ___________ 4d. Is your house easily accessible by road all year long or only during certain seasons? 1 All year long 2 Only during certain seasons 3 Never easily accessible 4e. How many times have you traveled to the poblacion last month? 4f. How much is the fare from your house to the poblacion? . 4g. With respect to access to the following, would you say that you are better off now than a year ago? 1 Better off 2 Worse off 3 Same i. Potable water supply ii. Electricity iii. Health care facility iv. School v. Place of work vi. Marketplace vii. Capital (financing or micro-finance institutions) viii. Technology pertaining to source of income (modern inputs/ farming practices) 47 D. POVERTY INDICATORS 3. Economic Characteristics (5 years old and over) 1a. JOB OR BUSINESS FROM JUNE TO AUGUST 2003 F Check Did _____ What was ______'s primary job or What kind of What was _____'s A if 5 work at all business? business/ class as a worker? M years or had a Industry did I old andjob or What other job/business did he _____engage in? L Older business have? Y from june (Specify, e.g. palay to august? (Please include job/business which farm, public M last for only a few days, school, jeepney unpaid work on family farm, PUJ, etc.) E raising chickens, etc. Gainful M occupation) B 1 Yes E 2 No P - Primary R Skip to O - Others Col. 26 Enter Code (1) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (20) (21) (22) (23) P 01 O P 02 O P 03 O P 04 O P 05 O P 06 O P 07 O P 08 O P 09 O P 10 O O 48 Codes for Column 22 Codes for Column 23 Kind of business/industry engaged in Class of Workers 1 Agriculture, Fishing, and Forestry 1 Worked for private household 2 Mining and Quarrying 2 Worked for private establishment 3 Manufacturing 3 Worked for government/GOCC 4 Electricity, Gas and Water 4 Self-employed w/out any employee 5 Construction 5 Employer in own-family operated farm or 6 Wholesale and Retail Trade business 7 Transportation, Storage and Communication 6 Worked w/ pay on own family-operated farm or 8 Financing, Insurance, Real Estate & Business business Services 7 Worked w/out pay in own family-operated farm 9 Community, Social and Personal Services or business 10 Not specified elsewhere 8 Worked for somebody else's farms Codes for Column 27 Reason for not looking for work 1 Relieve work not available 2 Awaiting results of previous job application 3 Temporary illness/disability 4 Bad Weather 5 Waiting for rehire/job recal 6 Too young/old, retireed or permanently disabled 7 Housekeeping 8 Schooling 9 Others, specify ___________________ 1a. For columns 24 and 25; additional work for past 3 months 1b. For columns 26 and 27; job/business from June to August 49 FOR FAMILY MEMBERS WHO FOR FAMILY MEMBERS WHO DID NOT F WORKED WORK A M Did _______ How many more Did _________ Why did _________ not I look for hours per day look for work at look for work? L additional work was ______ anytime during Y the past 3 willing to work? the past six months? months? M E 1 Yes, skip to M 1. yes next section B 2 no, go to 2 No E next R section Enter code (1) (24) (25) (26) (27) (24) (25) (26) (27) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 50 2. Agricultural profile If any of the answer to column 22 is 1 then proceed, else ð go to 3. 2a. Did you or any member of the family engage in crop farming or gardening in the past 12 months? 1 Yes (fill up the table below) 2 no ð go to 2b 2ai. Farm Profile (Based on the past 12 months) Crops Planted Type of Land Topography Total production (Specify unit) Enter code (28) (29) (30) (31) (28) (2 (3 (31) (1) 9) 0) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Codes for Column 29 Codes for Column 30 Type of Land Topography 1 Irrigated big systems (i.e., NIS/CIS) 1 Plain 2 Irrigated small systems (i.e., SWIP, STW, LLP, SFR) 2 Hilly/rolling 3 Rainfed 3 Mountainous 4 Combination, specify ____________ 51 2aii. Marketing of Crop Produce Product Sold To whom Means of Cost of Transport/ Crops Type Transport Unit (P) Enter code (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) 32 33 34 35 36 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Codes for Column 33 Codes for Column 34 Codes for Column 35 Type of Product Sold To whom Products are sold Means of Transport 1 Shelled corn 1 Trader 1 Motorized vehicle 2-wheeled 2 Milled rice 2 Input supplier 2 Motorized vehicle 3-wheeled 3 Copra 3 NFA 3 Motorized vehicle 4-wheeled or bigger 4 Nuts 4 Cooperative 4 Motorized water transport 5 Others (specify) 5 Direct sale to end consumers 5 Non-motorized water transport 6 Landlord 6 Animals 7 Other farmer 7 Person 8 Others (specify) _______ 8 Others (specify), ____________ 2b. Livestock/Poultry Inventory Did you or any member of the family raise livestock/poultry the past 12 months? 1 Yes (fill up table below) 2 no ð go to 2c 2bi. Livestock/poultry profile (based on the past 12 months) Livestock/Poultry Number of Average estimated heads value/head (P) Ownership Enter code (37) (38) (39) (40) (37 (38) (39) (40 ) ) (1) (2) (3) Codes for Column 40 Ownership 1 fully owned 2 "alaga" 3 others (specify) 52 2bii. Marketing Practices for livestock Product Sold To Cost of whom Means of Transport/Unit Livestock Type Transport (P) Enter Code (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Codes for Column 42 Codes for Column 43 Codes for Column 44 Type of Product Sold To whom products are sold Means of Transportation 1 Live 1 Trader 1 Motorized vehicle 2-wheeled 2 Dressed 2 Input supplier 2 Motorized vehicle 3-wheeled 3 Cuts 3 Cooperative 3 Motorized vehicle 4-wheeled or bigger 4 Others (specify) 4 Direct sale to end consumers 4 Motorized water transport 5 Landlord 5 Non-motorized water transport 6 Other livestock/poultry raisers 6 Animals 7 Others (specify) _______ 7 Person 8 Others (specify), _____________ 53 2c. Fishery profile Did you or any member of the family engage in fishing over the past 12 months? 1 Yes (please fill up table below) 2 no ð go to 3 2ci. Access to Fishery Resources Type of Fishing (check if applicable) (46) Enter code A. Sustenance/subsistence B. Deep sea C. Aquaculture Fishpond Fish pen Prawn Others, specify ____________ D. Others, specify ____________ 2cii. Fishing Production Type of Fishing Average catch Value of Catch rate/day (kgs.) (PhP) Enter code (47) (48) (49) (48) (49) A. Sustenance/subsistence B. Deep sea C. Aquaculture Fishpond Fishpen Prawn Others, specify ____________ D. Others, specify ____________ 54 2ciii. Marketing Practices for fishery Product Sold To Cost of whom Means of Transport/Unit Fish Type Transport (P) Enter Code (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 4. Housing and amenities Housing ENTER CODE AT THE TIME OF VISIT... 3a. What type of building/ house does the family reside in? 1 Single house 2 Duplex 3 Apartment/ accessoria/ condominium/ townhouse 4 Improvised house 5 Commercial/industrial/ agricultural building 6 Other housing unit (e.g., cave, boat) 3b. What type of construction materials is the roof made of? 1 Strong materials (galvanized iron, aluminum, tile, concrete, brick stone, asbestos) 2 Light materials (cogon, nipa, anahaw) 3 Salvaged/makeshift materials 4 Mixed but predominantly strong materials 5 Mixed but predominantly light materials 6 Mixed but predominantly salvaged materials 55 3c. What type of construction materials are the outer walls made of? 1 Strong materials (galvanized iron, aluminum, tile, concrete, brick stone, asbestos) 2 Light materials (cogon, nipa, anahaw) 3 Salvaged/makeshift materials 4 Mixed but predominantly strong materials 5 Mixed but predominantly light materials 6 Mixed but predominantly salvaged materials 3d. Tenure status i. What is the tenure status of the house and lot occupied by your family? 1 Own or owner-like possession of house and lot 2 Rent house/room including lot 3 Own house, rent lot 4 Own house, rent-free lot with consent of owner 5 Own house, rent-free lot without consent of owner 6 Rent-free house and lot with consent of owner 7 Rent-free house and lot without consent of owner ii. What is the floor area of the housing unit? SQUARE METERS SQUARE FEET 1 Less than 10 Less than 108 2 10 ­ 29 108 ­ 317 3 30 ­ 49 318 ­ 532 4 50 ­ 69 533 ­ 748 5 70 ­ 89 749 ­ 963 6 90 ­ 119 964 ­ 1286 7 120 ­149 1287 ­ 1609 8 150 ­199 1610 ­ 2147 9 200 & over 2148 & over iii. How many rooms are there in your house? iv. Did you acquire your house and lot through the assistance of government or financing program? (to be asked only if answer in 3di is code "1") 1 Yes 2 No v. Do you own any other housing unit elsewhere? 1 Yes 2 No vi. Do you own any agricultural land that you use for purposes other than residence? 1 Yes 2 No ð go to question 3e 56 vii. Did you acquire this agricultural land under the CARP land-distribution program? 1 Yes 2 No Amenities 3e. Electricity i. Is there any electricity in the building/house? 1 Yes 2 No ð go to 3f Since when? (Specify year) ii. Under what project was it acquired? 1 Barangay project (no outside assistance)/ bayanihan 2 Municipality project 3 Self help 4 KALAHI-CIDSS-CIDSS 5 KALAHI-CIDSS 6 CIDSS 7 Others, specify __________________ (including combination of the above) 9 Do not know 3f. Which of the following item does the family own? (Please check box) 1 Radio/Stereo If Yes, how many? 2 Television set If Yes, how many? 3 VHS/VCD/DVD If Yes, how many? 4 Refrigerator If Yes, how many? 5 Gas stove/ Gas Range If Yes, how many? 6 Washing Machine If Yes, how many? 7 Sala set If Yes, how many? 8 Dining Set If Yes, how many? 9 Beds, cabinets If Yes, how many? 10 Electric fan If Yes, how many? 11 Rice cooker If Yes, how many? 12 Toaster If Yes, how many? 13 Sewing machine If Yes, how many? 14 Flat iron If Yes, how many? 57 15 Motorcycle, tricycle If Yes, how many? 16 Car, jeep If Yes, how many? 17 Generator If Yes, how many? 58 3. Diet Recall Please recall the menu you had the past three days. NOTE: If there was any special occasion in the family (e.g. birthday, wedding, fiesta, etc.), exclude that special day. If none, proceed. Check DAY 1 FOOD ITEM CHECKLIST if QUANTITY VALUE consumed CONSUMED In PhP BREAKFAST a. Cereal and cereal preparation (rice, corn, bread, biscuits, flour, native cakes, noodles, infant cereal, cereal based junk foods, etc.) b. Roots and tubers (potato, cassava, sweet potato, gabi, ubi, tugui, cassava cake, haleya, potato chips, etc.) c. Fruits and vegetables (fresh fruits, leafy veg., fruit veg., green/dry beans and other legumes, coconut, peanuts, fruit preparations, pickled veg., tokwa, tausi, miso, peanut butter, etc.) d. Meat and meat preparation (fresh LUNCH chicken, fresh beef, fresh pork, carabeef, goat's meat, corned beef, luncheon meat, meatloaf, Vienna sausage, longanisa, chorizo, hotdog, tocino, tapa, etc.) e. Dairy products and eggs (milk, ice cream, butter, cheese, fresh eggs, balut, salted eggs) f. Fish and marine products (fresh fish, shrimps, squid, shells, sardines, daing, tuyo, tinapa, bagoong, canned squid, etc.) DINNER g.Coffee, cocoa, tea (processed, coffee beans, milo, ovaltine, processed cocoa, cocoa beans, processed tea, tea leaves, etc.) h. Non-alcoholic beverages (softdrinks, pineapple juice, orange juice, ice candy, ice drop, ice buko, etc.) 59 i. Food not elsewhere classified (sugar, sugar products, cooking oil, margarine, sauces, salt, other spices & seasoning, prepared meals bought outside and eaten at home, ice, honey, etc.) SNACKS j. Food Consumed Outside the Home (meals at schools, place of work, restaurants, merienda or snacks, etc.) k. Alcoholic Beverages (beer, tuba, basi, lambanog, brandy, whisky, rhum, etc.) l. Tobacco (cigarettes, cigars, betel nut, leaf and lime, chewing tobacco, leaf tobacco, etc.) Check QUANTIT DAY 2 FOOD ITEM CHECKLIST if Y VALUE consumed CONSUME In PhP D BREAKFAST a. Cereal and cereal preparation (rice, corn, bread, biscuits, flour, native cakes, noodles, infant cereal, cereal based junk foods, etc.) b. Roots and tubers (potato, cassava, sweet potato, gabi, ubi, tugui, cassava cake, haleya, potato chips, etc.) c. Fruits and vegetables (fresh fruits, leafy veg., fruit veg., green/dry beans and other legumes, coconut, peanuts, fruit preparations, pickled veg., tokwa, tausi, miso, peanut butter, etc.) d. Meat and meat preparation (fresh LUNCH chicken, fresh beef, fresh pork, carabeef, goat's meat, corned beef, luncheon meat, meatloaf, Vienna sausage, longanisa, chorizo, hotdog, tocino, tapa, etc.) e. Dairy products and eggs (milk, ice cream, butter, cheese, fresh eggs, balut, salted eggs) 60 f. Fish and marine products (fresh fish, shrimps, squid, shells, sardines, daing, tuyo, tinapa, bagoong, canned squid, etc.) DINNER g.Coffee, cocoa, tea (processed, coffee beans, milo, ovaltine, processed cocoa, cocoa beans, processed tea, tea leaves, etc.) h. Non-alcoholic beverages (softdrinks, pineapple juice, orange juice, ice candy, ice drop, ice buko, etc.) i. Food not elsewhere classified (sugar, sugar products, cooking oil, margarine, sauces, salt, other spices & seasoning, prepared meals bought outside and eaten at home, ice, honey, etc.) SNACKS j. Food Regularly Outside the Home (meals at schools, place of work, restaurants, merienda or snacks, etc.) k. Alcoholic Beverages (beer, tuba, basi, lambanog, brandy, whisky, rhum, etc.) l. Tobacco (cigarettes, cigars, betel nut, leaf and lime, chewing tobacco, leaf tobacco, etc.) Check DAY 3 FOOD ITEM CHECKLIST if QUANTITY VALUE consume CONSUMED In PhP d BREAKFAST a. Cereal and cereal preparation (rice, corn, bread, biscuits, flour, native cakes, noodles, infant cereal, cereal based junk foods, etc.) b. Roots and tubers (potato, cassava, sweet potato, gabi, ubi, tugui, cassava cake, haleya, potato chips, etc.) 61 c. Fruits and vegetables (fresh fruits, leafy veg., fruit veg., green/dry beans and other legumes, coconut, peanuts, fruit preparations, pickled veg., tokwa, tausi, miso, peanut butter, etc.) d. Meat and meat preparation (fresh LUNCH chicken, fresh beef, fresh pork, carabeef, goat's meat, corned beef, luncheon meat, meatloaf, Vienna sausage, longanisa, chorizo, hotdog, tocino, tapa, etc.) e. Dairy products and eggs (milk, ice cream, butter, cheese, fresh eggs, balut, salted eggs) f. Fish and marine products (fresh fish, shrimps, squid, shells, sardines, daing, tuyo, tinapa, bagoong, canned squid, etc.) DINNER g.Coffee, cocoa, tea (processed, coffee beans, milo, ovaltine, processed cocoa, cocoa beans, processed tea, tea leaves, etc.) h. Non-alcoholic beverages (softdrinks, pineapple juice, orange juice, ice candy, ice drop, ice buko, etc.) i. Food not elsewhere classified (sugar, sugar products, cooking oil, margarine, sauces, salt, other spices & seasoning, prepared meals bought outside and eaten at home, ice, honey, etc.) SNACKS j. Food Regularly Outside the Home (meals at schools, place of work, restaurants, merienda or snacks, etc.) k. Alcoholic Beverages (beer, tuba, basi, lambanog, brandy, whisky, rhum, etc.) l. Tobacco (cigarettes, cigars, betel nut, leaf and lime, chewing tobacco, leaf tobacco, etc.) 62 4. Consumption and Expenditure 5a. During the PAST MONTH, how much was monthly expenses/consumption on the following (Includes all expenses/consumption whether purchased/paid for in cash/on credit, received as gifts or own-produced) TOTAL TOTAL ITEM CONSUMED RECEIVED AS In PhP GIFTS In PhP 5ai. FUEL (charcoal, firewood, LPG, kerosene/gas) 5aii. LIGHT (electricity, candle, oils) 5aiii. WATER (WATER BILL) 5aiv. TRANSPORTATION (bus, jeepney, tricycle, air transport fare, water transport fare, gasoline/diesel, driver's salary, driving lesson, feeds for animals used for transport) 5av. COMMUNICATION (telephone bills, postage stamps, telegrams, messenger fees, etc. 5avi. RENT (rental expenses, if own house then get imputed cost) 5b. During the PAST SIX MONTHS, how much was your disbursements/expenditures on the following? (Includes all expenditures whether purchased/paid for in cash/ on credit or received as gifts) TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DISBURSED RECEIVED AS In PhP GIFTS In PhP 5bi. CLOTHING, FOOTWEAR AND OTHER WEAR (clothing & ready-made apparel, footwear, sewing materials, accessories, service fees, etc.) 5bii. EDUCATION (matriculation fees, allowance for family member studying away from home, books, school supplies, etc.) 5biii. RECREATION (children bicycle & playcards, dolls, balls, mahjong sets, admission tickets to movies, rental of video tapes, food for pets, etc.) 5biv. MEDICAL CARE (drugs & medicines, hospital room charges, medical and dental charges, other medical goods & supplies, etc.) 5bv. NON-DURABLE FURNISHING (dinnerware, glassware, silverware, kitchen utensils/knives, mosquito net, pillow, pillow cases, etc. 5bvi. DURABLE FURNISHING (refrigerator, cooking range/ stove, washing machine, T.V., Cassette recorder, electric fan, etc.) 5bvii. TAXES (income tax, real estate tax, car registration, toll fees & other license, residence certificate, withholding tax, etc.) 5bviii. HOUSE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR (carpentry materials, electrical materials, masonry, paint, plumbing materials, etc.) 63 5bix. SPECIAL FAMILY OCCASIONS 5bx. GIFTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO OTHERS (gifts and assistance to private individuals outside the family, contribution to church, donations, etc.) 5bxi. OTHER EXPENDITURES (life insurance & retirement premiums, SSS, GSIS, losses due to fire & theft, legal fees, membership fees, medicare, pre-need plan, etc.) 5bxii. OTHER DISBURSEMENTS a. purchase/amortization of real property b. Payments of cash loan (principal) c. Installments for appliances, etc. bought before _______ (year of visit) d. Installments for personal transport bought before _______ (year of visit) e. loans granted to persons outside the family g. Other disbursements (major repair and construction of house, payment for goods/services acquired/ availed of, back rentals paid during the reference period, etc.) 5. Self-rated poverty 6a. Comparing your quality of life these days to how it was 12 months ago, would you say that your quality of life is ... (Show flash cards) 1 Better now 2 Same as before 3 Worse now 6b. Where would you place your family in this card? (Show flash card) 1 Not poor 2 On the line ð proceed to 6d 3 Poor ð proceed to 6d 6c. How much would a family, of the same size as yours, which felt it was poor, need for home expenses each month in order not to feel poor anymore? ð proceed to 6e 6d. How much would your family need for home expenses each month in order not to feel poor anymore? 6e. How many of the last twelve months did you feel that you were poor? (Show flash card) 6f. How many of the last five years did you feel that you were poor? (Show flash card) 6g. How many of the last ten years did you feel that you were poor? (Show flash card) 64 6h. 10 years ago, where would you place your family in this card? (Show flash card) 1 Not poor 2 On the line 3 Poor 8 Not applicable E. EMPOWERMENT AND GOVERNANCE 1. Bayanihan/collective action 1a. Over the past six months, did you or any member of your family participate in any bayanihan in the barangay ? 1 YES 2 NO ð proceed to question 1b 1ai. If yes, what were the three main activities? Activity 1. 2. 3. 1aii. Who usually represented the family in these activities? 1 Male 2 Female 3 Both 1aiii. All together, how much time did you or anyone else in your family spend on these activities? Representative in family Time spent (hours) Male Female 65 1b. Suppose something unfortunate happened to someone in the barangay/neighborhood, such as a serious illness. How likely is it that some people in the barangay would get together to help them? (Show flash cards) 1 Very likely 2 Somewhat likely 3 Neither likely or unlikely 4 Somewhat unlikely 5 Very unlikely 1c. If a barangay project, such as day care center, does not directly benefit you, but has benefits for many others in the barangay/neighborhood, would you contribute time to the project? Would you contribute money to the project i. Time ii. Money 1 Will contribute time 1 Will contribute money 2 Will not contribute time 2 Will not contribute money 3 Depending on availability 3 Depending on availability 2. Social cohesion and inclusion 2a. Are there people in the barangay/neighborhood who are prevented from or deprived of any of the following? How many are excluded? 1 Yes ð go to col. (56) 1 Only a few people 2 Many people, but less than half of the 2 No ð go to 2c barangay/neighborhood 3 More than half the barangay/ 9 Don't know ð go to neighborhood 2c (55) (56) A. Education/schools B. Health services/clinics C. Water D. Justice E. Transportation F. Agricultural extension 2b. Give at most three reasons why some people are excluded from these services? 1 Income level 2 Religion 3 Ethnicity/ linguistic background/ race/ tribe 66 4 Occupation 5 Gender 6 Age 7 Others, (specify) ______________ 2c. In your opinion, is this barangay/neighborhood generally peaceful or marked by crime and violence? (Show flash cards) 1 Very peaceful 2 Somewhat peaceful 3 Neither peaceful nor violent 4 Somewhat violent 5 Very violent 2d. Compared to the past year, has the level of crime and violence in this barangay/neighborhood ... (Show flash cards) 1 Increased a lot 2 Increased a little 3 Stayed about the same 4 Decreased a little 5 Decreased a lot 67 3. Trust and Solidarity In every barangay, some people get along with others and trust each other, while other people do not. Now, I would like to talk to you about trust and solidarity in your community. 3a. In general, do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Show flash cards) 1 Disagree strongly 2 Disagree somewhat 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Agree somewhat 5 Agree strongly 9 Don't know A. Most people who live in this barangay/neighborhood can be trusted. B. In this barangay/neighborhood, one has to be alert or someone is likely to take advantage of you. C. Most people in this barangay/neighborhood are willing to help if you need it. D. In this barangay/neighborhood, people generally do not trust each other in matters of lending and borrowing money. 3b. Now I want to ask you how much you trust different types of people. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means a very small extent and 5 means a very great extent, how much do you trust the people in that category? (Show flash cards) 1 To a very small extent 2 To a small extent 3 Neither small nor great extent 4 To a great extent 5 To a very great extent 9 Don't know A. People from your (ethnic or linguistic group/race/tribe) B. People from other (ethnic or linguistic groups/race/tribe) C. Traders D. Local government officials E. National government officials F. Police G. Teachers H. Nurses and doctors I. Strangers 68 4. Groups and networks 4a. Are you or any member of your family a member of any people's organization, religious and/or any nongovernmental organization? 1 YES 2 NO ð proceed to question 4b Who in your Does this family are organization members of Enter Family What are these What type of What is How many work with other this member Organizations? organization is ______'s times did groups in the organization? number from (List name of this? position in the ____ attend barangay to page 2 organizations) (List for each organization? the address ENTER organization) organization important NAME 's meetings concerns? over the past year? 1 YES 2 NO ENTER ENTER CODE CODE ENTER CODE (57) (58) (59) (60) (61) (62) (63) Codes for Column 60 Codes for Column 61 Type of Organization Position in Organization 1 Socio-civic 1 Officer 2 Religious, specify ______ 2 Adviser/ elder 3 Cooperatives 3 Committee 4 NGO member 5 Workers Association 4 Member 69 4b. If you suddenly needed to borrow a small amount of money enough to pay for expenses for your household for one week, are there people beyond your immediate household and close relatives (to whom you could turn) that would be willing to help you? 1 Definitely 2 Probably 3 Unsure 4 Probably not 5 Definitely not 5. Governance 5a. Does this barangay have a functioning Barangay Development Council? 1 Yes ð Name one __________ (excluding the barangay council) 2 No ð go to question 5c 3 Invalid 9 Don't know ð go to question 5c 5b. Can you name one activity carried out by the Barangay Development Council in the last 12 months? 1 Yes Activity:________________ 2 No 3 Invalid 9 Don't Know 5c. Does your Barangay hold Barangay Assembly? 1 Yes 2 No ð proceed to question 5g 9 Don't Know 5d. Over the past six months, did you or a member of your family attend a Barangay Assembly? 1 Yes 2 No ð proceed to question 5g 9 Don't Know ð proceed to question 5g 5e. If yes, who usually represented the family in these meetings? 1 Male 2 Female 3 Both 70 5f. How often did you or a member of your family attend these meetings over the past six months? Representative in the family No. of times attended Male Female 5g. In the past 6 months, have you or a member of your family done any of the following? If yes, who in the family was involved? 1 Yes 1 Male 2 No 2 Female 8 Not applicable 3 Both A. Attended a barangay meeting B. Joined in the planning of barangay development programs C. Met with a politician, called him/her, or sent a letter D. Participated in a protest or demonstration E. Participated in an information campaign F. Alerted newspaper, radio or TV to a local problem G. Notified police or court about a local problem 5h. What are the three most important sources of information about what the government is doing (such as development projects, agricultural extension, workfare, family planning, etc.)? 1 Relatives, friends and neighbors 2 Community bulletin board 3 Community or local newspaper 4 Barangay Assembly 5 Barangay Development Council 6 Radio 7 Television 8 Groups or associations 9 Business or work associates 10 Community leaders 11 An agent of the government 12 NGOs 13 Internet 71 5i. In general, compared with the previous year*, has access to information this year improved, deteriorated, or stayed about the same? [* ENUMERATOR: TIME PERIOD CAN BE CLARIFIED BY SITUATING IT BEFORE/AFTER MAJOR EVENT] 1 Improved 2 Deteriorated 3 Stayed about the same 5j. Do you know the details of barangay income and expenses, including the costs of particular development activities such as road or school project? 1 Yes 2 No ð proceed to 5l 5k. How did you know about them? 1 Announced at a Barangay Assembly 2 Posted in a public place 3 From family and/or friends 4 Other (please specify) ______________________ 5l. What do you think are the three (3) most pressing problems in your barangay today? Are you satisfied with how the local Check if government responds to mentioned Problems this problem? 1 Yes 2 No (64) (65) (66) Bad roads Inadequate water and sanitation facilities Lack of employment opportunities Illiteracy/increasing number of out-of-school youths Power supply problems Health and nutrition problems Problems with peace and order Others, specify 72 5m. If there is a problem that affects your entire sitio or barangay, such as the breakdown of the water supply system, how is this usually solved? 1 Family, neighbors and friends get together to find a solution 2 Parents of school children get together to find a solution 3 Barangay Captain finds a solution 4 Barangay Assembly finds a solution 5 Barangay Development Council finds a solution 6 Municipal government finds a solution 7 The problem remains unsolved 8 Others, please specify ________________________________ 9 Don't know 5n. When there is a decision to be made in the barangay that affects you, such as deciding between building a new school and a road, how does this usually come about? 1 The Municipality or a government agency makes the decision 2 The Barangay Captain makes the decision 3 The Barangay Council makes the decision 4 A meeting between barangay leaders and the concerned people. 5 A Barangay Assembly with a clear majority of households and representing all sitios and sectors. 6 A Barangay Assembly representing less than half the barangay households. 7 A referendum was passed around 8 Others (please specify), _______________________ 9 Don't know/ not sure 5o. Compared to last year, how would you rate your confidence, and that of the members of your family, to play an active role in community decision-making and development activities? (Show flash cards) 1 Greatly improved 2 Somewhat Improved 3 Remained much the same 4 Declined 5 Greatly declined 5p. In the past year, did you or any member of your family require services such as business permit, barangay clearance or community tax certificate from the local government? 1 Yes 2 No ð end of interview 5q. Did you or any member of your family have to pay some additional money to government officials to get things done? 1 Yes, often 2 Yes, occasionally 3 No 5r. Are such payments effective in getting a service delivered or a problem solved? 1 Yes, usually 2 Yes, but only occasionally 3 Usually not 73 Thank you for your cooperation. TIME ENDED Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3 References: Annual Poverty Indicator Survey (APIS) Family, Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) Benchmark Survey for the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Social Capital Questionnaire (SOCAPIQ) of the World Bank Social Weather Station (SWS) Survey 74 Annex 4: Village Official Survey LCS Form 2 FINAL LIVING CONDITIONS SURVEY Interview Schedule for Barangay Official Good (morning, afternoon), I'm _________________ and we are conducting a survey on your community. The purpose of this survey is to find out about your living conditions. The accuracy of the results of the whole survey will depend on your sincere and precise answers. Your input would benefit future planning and monitoring of programs. The information you give to us will be kept confidential. You and your household members will not be identified by name or address in any of the reports we plan to write. Thank you for your participation. A. IDENTIFICATION AND OTHER INFORMATION FIELD COMPARISON Name of Interviewer __________________________ Date Time Started Remarks Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3 75 IDENTIFICATION CODES Region: __________________________________________ Province: __________________________________________ Municipality: __________________________________________ Barangay: __________________________________________ Name/s of Respondent/s: _________________________________ Name Designation B. POPULATION PROFILE 1. How many families are there in the barangay? ______________________ 2. How many people are there in the barangay? ______________________ 3. When was the latest population census conducted? _________________ 4. How many women aged 35 and above are in the barangay? ____________________________________________ 5. Are there indigenous people (IP) in your barangay? (1) Yes (2) None If yes, to what group do they belong? _____________________________________ How many are they? _______ families _______ individuals 6. Can you identify certain families in your barangay that never participate in any community activities? (1) Yes (2) No Who are they? (Please identify by surname) ______________________________ ____________________________ ______________________________ ____________________________ 76 What do you think are their reasons for not participating? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ C. PRESENCE/ ACCESS TO FACILITIES 1. Road Network a. What types of road traverse through the barangay? b. What proportion of the roads are (type)? (specify % distribution) Please check Types of Road % Dirt Gravel Asphalted Cemented/All Weather Road 2. Establishments a. Is there a (establishment) in your barangay? b. (for e-h, j & k only) If there is no (establishment), how far is your barangay to the nearest (facility)? Please indicate if it is in minutes or kms. Establishment Please check If none, distance to Indicate if in nearest facility mins/kms a. Town or Provincial Hall b. Church c. Plaza d. Cemetery e. Market place mins/kms f. Elementary School mins/kms g. Secondary School mins/kms h. College or university mins/kms i. Public Library 77 j. Hospital mins/kms k. Health Center mins/kms l. Housing Projects m. Telephone lines n. Telegraph o. Postal Service p. Waterworks System q. Stores r. Financing Institution s. Post Harvest Facilities mins/kms D. PRESENCE OF ORGANIZED SECTOR 1. Are there people's organizations present in the barangay? 2. What are these? 3. When were they established? 4. What are their primary functions? 5. How many are their members? 6. Is membership exclusive? If yes, for which groups? Community When How many Organizations established Primary functions members Exclusive for whom 78 Codes for Primary Functions Codes for Exclusive for whom 1 Environment preservation/ Community beautification 1 Barangay residents 2 Spiritual 2 Farmers/ Workers' group 3 Provide training and skills 3 Women 4 Provide financial assistance to members 4 Youth 5 Provide support and assistance to government programs 5 Senior citizen 6 Women empowerment 6 Others, specify __________ E. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 7 Others, specify _________ 1. Over the past year, what development projects have been implemented in your barangay? 2. How much did the project cost? 3. Where did the funds come from? 4. How much was financed by the barangay? 5. Who decided on the choice of the project? How? 6. When was this sort of project first proposed? (Specify the year) 7. When was the project approved? (Specify the year) Cost of Source of Cost Development projects Decision When When project funds Sharing (%) Mechanism proposed approved Codes for Development Projects Codes for Source of Funds 1 Roads 1 Barangay Fund 2 Water Supply 2 Municipal Fund 3 Toilet 3 Provincial Fund 4 Livelihood 4 Congressional Development Fund (CDF) 5 Education 5 National government agencies 6 Electrification (e.g. DSWD, DA, etc.) 7 Health and Nutrition 6 ODA ( Foreign-assisted projects) 8 Others, specify _________ 7 Others, specify _____________ 79 F. ACCESS TO SERVICES 1. Which of the following do you think are the main problems of your barangay? Select the top three (3). Please check box. Are these Problems being addressed Check if properly? mentioned Problems 1 YES Kindly explain your answer 2 No ENTER Roads Water and Sanitation Lack of Employment opportunities Illiteracy/increasing number of out-of-school youth Power Supply Health and Nutrition Peace and Order Lack of service facilities Others, specify 80 2. Over the past six months, how many times did the following personnel visit your barangay either to consult with the community or provide services? Government Official Number of visits Mayor/vice mayor/councilor Municipal planning officer Municipal agrarian reform officer Municipal social worker Agriculture extension worker Government doctor / Municipal health officer Government midwife G. ACCESS TO FINANCIAL RESOURCES 1. How much was your IRA the past year? ________________ 2. What other sources of revenue does your barangay have? Please check all that apply. a. provincial government b. municipal government c. tax and other fees i. business tax ii. real property tax iii. clearance iv. Official Development Assistance d. Community Development Fund (CDF) e. Others, pls. specify ____________ 3. How do you disseminate the information on the financial situation of the barangay to the residents of your barangay? How often is the reporting done? ______________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________ 4. Who are the members of your BDC? 81 5. What is the designation of ______________? Name of members Designation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6. How were the BDC members selected? _______ identified by the Barangay Captain _______ identified by the Barangay Council _______ approved by entire barangay during a Barangay Assembly _______ approved by entire barangay through a referendum 7. During the past year, how many times did the BDC meet? _________ 8. During the past year, what activities did the BDC undertake? Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 82 9. During the past year, how many times did you meet with the barangay residents? No. of Meetings Per Time Unit Month Quarter Year Others, specify ____________________________________ 10. On the average, how many barangay residents are present during the meetings? ______ H. PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT 1. During the past year, how many times did your barangay council meet? No. of Meetings Per Time Unit Month Quarter Year Others, specify ____________________________________ 2. How many barangay officials do you have in your barangay? 3. On the average, how many of them are present during the meetings? To the interviewer: Indicate the other sources of information: __________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ FIELD COMPARISON Time Ended: ____________________ 83 Annex 5: Selected Summary Statistics 33 Demographics Main ethno-linguistic groups Freq. Percent Bikol, Sorsogeno 561 23.55 Capizeno 468 19.65 Cebuano 429 18.01 Bisaya/Binisaya 332 13.94 Hilihaynon, Ilongo, Negrense 145 6.09 Manobo/Ata-Manobo 83 3.48 Boholano 78 3.27 Subanen 62 2.60 Waray, Leyteno 35 1.47 Maguindanao 34 1.43 Surigaonon 32 1.34 Other 123 5.17 Total 2382 100.00 Obs Mean St.dev Household size 2401 5.12 2.20 Average age 12291 23.88 19.67 Age distribution Obs Percent Less than 1 years old 288 2.34 1 to 6 2123 17.27 7 to 12 2400 19.53 13 to 16 1229 10.00 17 to 22 1080 8.78 23 to 44 3048 24.80 45 to 64 1600 13.02 65 and above 523 4.26 Total 12291 Gender Freq. Percent Male 6401 52.08 Female 5890 47.92 Total 12291 100.00 33This annex summarizes selected variables from the baseline survey. It is intended to show a snapshot of the data available. Please refer to the two survey instruments (Annex 3 and 4) for a full overview of the data collected. 84 Relation to the family head Freq. Percent Head 2401 19.54 Spouse 1946 15.84 Son/daughter 6557 53.36 Son-in-law/ daughter in-law 142 1.16 Grandchild 796 6.48 Father/mother 94 0.76 Other relatives 352 2.86 Total 12288 100.00 Social Capital · Bayanihan Did you participate in any bayanihan act? Freq. Percent Yes 1310 54.58 No 1090 45.42 Total 2400 100.00 Usual representative in the activities Freq. Percent Male 841 35.10 Female 288 12.02 Both 177 7.39 N/A 1090 45.49 Total 2396 100.00 Male: no. of hours spent Obs Mean Std. Dev. 1016 15.02 39.59 Female: no of hours spent Obs Mean Std. Dev. 465 10.07 16.02 85 Likelihood that people get together to help others Freq. Percent Cum. Very likely 1126 46.94 46.94 Somewhat likely 765 31.89 78.82 Neither likely or unlikely 372 15.51 94.33 Somewhat unlikely 79 3.29 97.62 Very unlikely 57 2.38 100.00 Total 2399 100.00 Will contribute time to community project? Freq. Percent Will contribute time 1761 74.21 Will not contribute time 150 6.32 Depending on availability 462 19.47 Total 2373 100.00 Will contribute money to community project? Freq. Percent Will contribute money 900 38.51 Will not contribute money 387 16.56 Depending on availability 1050 44.93 Total 2337 100.00 · Social Inclusion Exclusion: education/schools Freq. Percent Yes 646 26.93 No 1681 70.07 Don't know 72 3.00 Total 2399 100.00 Exclusion: Health services Freq. Percent Yes 378 15.76 No 1950 81.28 Don't know 71 2.96 Total 2399 100.00 Exclusion: water Freq. Percent Yes 286 11.92 No 2097 87.41 Don't know 16 0.67 Total 2399 100.00 86 Exclusion: Justice Freq. Percent Yes 245 10.21 No 2005 83.58 Don't know 149 6.21 Total 2399 100.00 Exclusion: Transportation Freq. Percent Yes 219 9.13 No 2134 88.95 Don't know 46 1.92 Total 2399 100.00 Exclusion: Agricultural extension Freq. Percent Yes 259 10.80 No 1993 83.08 Don't know 147 6.13 Total 2399 100.00 Is this barangay generally peaceful or marked by violence? Freq. Percent Cum. Very peaceful 1175 49.00 49.00 Somewhat peaceful 844 35.20 84.20 Neither peaceful nor 240 10.01 94.20 violent Somewhat violent 126 5.25 99.46 Very violent 12 0.50 99.96 Don't know 1 0.04 100.00 Total 2398 100.00 Compare the level of crime and violence to last year Freq. Percent Cum. Increased a lot 92 3.83 3.83 Increased a little 238 9.92 13.75 Stayed about the same 1365 56.88 70.63 Decreased a little 464 19.33 89.96 Decreased a lot 240 10.00 99.96 Don't know 1 0.04 100.00 Total 2400 100.00 87 · Trust Most people in the barangay can be trusted Freq. Percent Cum. Disagree strongly 93 3.90 3.90 Disagree somewhat 240 10.07 13.97 Neither agree nor 661 27.74 41.71 disagree Agree somewhat 794 33.32 75.03 Agree strongly 595 24.97 100.00 Total 2383 100.00 One has to be alert or someone is likely to take advantage of you Freq. Percent Cum. Disagree strongly 225 9.46 9.46 Disagree somewhat 225 9.46 18.92 Neither agree nor 475 19.97 38.88 disagree Agree somewhat 703 29.55 68.43 Agree strongly 751 31.57 100.00 Total 2379 100.00 Most people are willing to help if you need it Freq. Percent Cum. Disagree strongly 44 1.84 1.84 Disagree somewhat 114 4.77 6.61 Neither agree nor 425 17.77 24.38 disagree Agree somewhat 832 34.80 59.18 Agree strongly 976 40.82 100.00 Total 2391 100.00 People do not trust each other in terms of lending and borrowing money Freq. Percent Cum. Disagree strongly 182 7.72 7.72 Disagree somewhat 302 12.81 20.53 Neither agree nor 759 32.20 52.74 disagree Agree somewhat 639 27.11 79.85 Agree strongly 475 20.15 100.00 Total 2357 100.00 88 Level of trust: people from your ethnic group Freq. Percent Cum. To a very small extent 81 3.38 3.38 To a small extent 273 11.40 14.78 Neither small nor great 1028 42.92 57.70 extent To a great extent 641 26.76 84.47 To a very great extent 372 15.53 100.00 Total 2395 100.00 Level of trust: people from other ethnic groups Freq. Percent Cum. To a very small extent 564 23.64 23.64 To a small extent 688 28.83 52.47 Neither small nor great 859 36.00 88.47 extent To a great extent 210 8.80 97.28 To a very great extent 65 2.72 100.00 Total 2386 100.00 Level of trust: traders Freq. Percent Cum. To a very small extent 352 14.86 14.86 To a small extent 608 25.66 40.52 Neither small nor great 879 37.10 77.63 extent To a great extent 412 17.39 95.02 To a very great extent 118 4.98 100.00 Total 2369 100.00 Level of trust: Local government officials Freq. Percent Cum. To a very small extent 100 4.18 4.18 To a small extent 203 8.49 12.68 Neither small nor great 783 32.76 45.44 extent To a great extent 813 34.02 79.46 To a very great extent 118 4.98 100.00 Total 2390 100.00 89 Level of trust: National government officials Freq. Percent Cum. To a very small extent 182 7.58 7.58 To a small extent 275 11.46 19.04 Neither small nor great 876 36.50 55.54 extent To a great extent 666 27.75 83.29 To a very great extent 373 15.54 98.83 Don't know 28 1.17 100.00 Total 2400 100.00 Level of trust: police Freq. Percent Cum. To a very small extent 209 8.71 8.71 To a small extent 317 13.21 21.92 Neither small nor great 858 35.75 57.67 extent To a great extent 698 29.08 86.75 To a very great extent 295 12.29 99.04 Don't know 23 0.96 100.00 Total 2400 100.00 Level of trust: Teachers Freq. Percent Cum. To a very small extent 31 1.29 1.29 To a small extent 106 4.42 5.71 Neither small nor great 527 21.96 27.67 extent To a great extent 959 39.96 67.63 To a very great extent 773 32.21 99.83 Don't know 4 0.17 100.00 Total 2400 100.00 Level of trust: nurses and doctors Freq. Percent Cum. To a very small extent 50 2.08 2.08 To a small extent 106 4.42 6.50 Neither small nor great 526 21.92 28.42 extent To a great extent 930 38.75 67.17 To a very great extent 776 32.33 99.50 Don't know 12 0.50 100.00 Total 2400 100.00 90 Level of trust: Strangers Freq. Percent Cum. To a very small extent 987 41.13 41.13 To a small extent 653 27.21 68.33 Neither small nor great 522 21.75 90.08 extent To a great extent 116 4.83 94.92 To a very great extent 91 3.79 98.71 Don't know 31 1.29 100.00 Total 2400 100.00 · Groups and Networks Member of any organization? Freq. Percent Yes 786 32.74 No 1615 67.26 Total 2401 100.00 Likelihood that other people will lend you money Freq. Percent Cum. Definitely 591 24.68 24.68 Probably 800 33.40 58.08 Unsure 522 21.80 79.87 Probably not 136 5.68 85.55 Definitely not 346 14.45 100.00 Total 2395 100.00 · Governance Does your barangay hold barangay assemblies? Freq. Percent Yes 2172 90.46 No 191 7.96 Don't know 38 1.58 Total 2401 100.00 Did you attend Barangay assemblies? Freq. Percent Yes 1449 60.35 No 738 30.74 N/A 191 7.96 Don't know 22 0.92 Total 2400 100.00 91 Usual representative in assemblies Freq. Percent Male 691 47.69 Female 574 39.61 Both 180 12.42 Don't know 4 0.28 Total 1449 100.00 Participation: Barangay meeting Freq. Percent Yes 1615 67.26 No 765 31.86 N/A 20 0.83 Don't know 1 0.04 Total 2401 100.00 Participation: Joined in barangay Development planning Freq. Percent Yes 673 28.03 No 1722 71.72 N/A 5 0.21 Don't know 1 0.04 Total 2401 100.00 Participation: Met with a Politician Freq. Percent Yes 141 5.87 No 2257 94.00 N/A 3 0.12 Total 2401 100.00 Participation: Protest Freq. Percent Yes 22 0.92 No 2371 98.75 N/A 8 0.33 Total 2401 100.00 Participation: Information campaign Freq. Percent Yes 97 4.04 No 2301 95.84 N/A 3 0.12 Total 2401 100.00 92 Participation: Alerted media Freq. Percent Yes 14 0.58 No 2383 99.25 N/A 4 0.17 Total 2401 100.00 Participation: Notify police or court Freq. Percent Yes 37 1.54 No 2356 98.21 N/A 6 0.25 Total 2399 100.00 Compare accessibility of information to past year Freq. Percent Improved 784 32.71 Deteriorated 242 10.10 Stayed the same 1368 57.07 Don't know 3 0.13 Total 2397 100.00 Do you know the income and expense details of the barangay? Freq. Percent Yes 238 9.91 No 2163 90.09 Total 2401 100.00 How is a barangay problem usually solved? Freq. Percent Family, neighbors, friends get 377 15.71 together Parents of school children get 21 0.88 together Barangay captain finds solution 1166 48.60 Barangay assembly finds 408 17.01 solution Barangay development council 147 6.13 finds solution Municipal government finds 81 3.38 Solution Problem remains unsolved 28 1.17 Other 131 5.46 Don't know 40 1.67 Total 2399 100.00 93 How does a decision come about? Freq. Percent Municipality or govt. agency 216 9.01 Barangay captain 914 38.12 Barangay council 572 23.85 Meeting between barangay 238 9.92 leaders and the concerned people Barangay assembly with 272 11.34 majority of households and all sitios Barangay assembly with less 47 1.96 than half of households Referendum passed around 2 0.08 Other 14 0.59 Don't know 123 5.13 Total 2398 100.00 Confidence to participate in activities and decision-making, compared to last year Freq. Percent Cum. Greatly improved 362 15.08 15.08 Somewhat improved 618 25.75 40.83 Same 1261 52.54 93.38 Declined 131 5.46 98.83 Greatly declined 24 1.00 99.83 Don't know 4 0.17 100.00 Total 2400 100.00 Expenditures Obs. Mean St.dev Mean per capita 2401 995.27 6085 monthly expenditure Medical expenditures 2401 1871 44631 (past 6 months) Education expenditures 2401 1673 27970 (past 6 months) Self-rated poverty Compare quality of life now to 12 months ago Freq. Percent Cum. Better now 363 15.12 15.12 Same as before 855 35.61 50.73 Worse now 1181 49.19 99.92 N/A 2 0.08 100.00 Total 2401 100.00 94 Where would you place your family on this card? Freq. Percent Cum. Not poor 97 4.04 4.04 On the line 598 24.91 28.95 Poor 1706 71.05 100.00 Total 2401 100.00 Non-poor family: How much would a family, of the same size as yours, which felt it was poor, need for home expenses each month in order not to feel poor anymore? Obs Mean Std. Dev. 97 5359.79 5104.02 Poor or on the line: How much would your family need for home expenses each month in order not to feel poor anymore? Obs Mean Std. Dev. 2297 7441.76 32511.4 How many of the last twelve months did you feel that you were poor? Obs Mean Std. Dev. 2396 6.39 4.28 Health Did ____ get sick during the last 6 months? Freq. Percent Yes 6245 50.81 No 6046 49.19 Total 12291 100.00 Did ___ see any health practitioner during the past 6 months? Freq. Percent Yes 2825 23.01 No 9454 76.99 Total 12279 100.00 95 Means of travel to health facility Freq. Percent Walking 886 37.01 Bus, car, jeep 351 14.66 Motorcycle/ tricycle 1061 44.32 Bicycle/Pedicab 61 2.55 Motorized boat 30 1.25 Non-motorized boat 2 0.08 N/A 3 0.13 Total 2394 100.00 Time it takes to travel to health facility Freq. Percent Cum. <15 minutes 1070 44.56 44.56 15-30 minutes 659 27.45 72.01 30-60 minutes 332 13.83 85.84 >1 hour 328 13.66 99.50 N/A 12 0.5 100.0 Total 2401 100.00 Do you get the needed health services? Freq. Percent Always 1136 47.31 Never 1166 48.56 Sometimes 84 3.50 N/A 15 0.62 Total 2401 100.00 Education Enrollment rates Obs Mean St.dev Elementary school 1424 0.93 3.23 High school 897 0.70 4.35 College 919 0.08 1.76 Currently attending school? Freq. Percent Yes 3757 30.57 No 1366 11.11 N/A 7167 58.32 Total 12290 100.00 96 Type of school Freq. Percent Public 3608 96.39 Private non-sectarian 98 2.62 Private sectarian 37 0.99 Total 3743 100.00 Means of going to school Freq. Percent Walking 2983 79.80 Bus, car, jeep 162 4.33 Motorcycle/tricycle 551 14.74 Bicycle/pedicab 23 0.62 Motorized boat 16 0.43 Non-motorized boat 3 0.08 Total 3738 100.00 Time it takes to reach school Freq. Percent Cum. <15 minutes 1754 47.20 47.20 16-30 minutes 787 21.18 68.38 31-59 minutes 234 6.30 74.68 >1 hour 186 5.01 79.68 N/A 755 20.32 100.00 Total 3716 100.00 Water Source of water Freq. Percent Own use, faucet, community 215 8.95 water system Own use, tube/piped well 255 10.62 Shared, faucet, community water 570 23.74 system Shared, tube/piped well 503 20.95 Dug well 489 20.37 Spring, river, stream etc. 307 12.79 Rain 44 1.83 Peddler 13 0.54 Unclassified 5 0.21 Total 2401 100.00 97 Water: safe for drinking? Freq. Percent Yes 2090 87.08 No 249 10.38 Do not know 61 2.54 Total 2400 100.00 Do you experience difficulties in fetching water? Freq. Percent Yes 1243 51.77 No 1158 48.23 Total 2401 100.00 If yes, what sort of difficulties? Freq. Percent Distant facility 574 46.29 Insufficient water 342 27.58 Combination of above two 133 10.73 Defective facility, water supply 26 2.10 affected by power supply problems Contaminated water 5 0.40 No transportation, hardly 80 6.45 accessible roads and bridges Too many people fetching 17 1.37 Flood and rainy days, drought 58 4.68 Water source restricted by owner 1 0.08 Water too costly 4 0.32 Total 1240 100.00 Toilet facility Freq. Percent Water sealed 1319 54.94 Closed pit 501 20.87 Open pit 229 9.54 Others (pail system, sewer direct 34 1.42 to river etc.) None/sharing toilet with 312 12.99 neighbor Plastic 1 0.04 Anywhere 5 0.21 Total 2401 100.00 98 Travel Time it takes to travel to nearest post office Freq. Percent Cum. <15 minutes 694 28.90 28.90 15-30 minutes 722 30.07 58.98 31-60 minutes 394 16.41 75.39 >1 hour 510 21.24 96.63 Don't know 81 3.37 100.00 Total 2401 100.00 Time it takes to travel to nearest telephone Freq. Percent Cum. Telephone in the house 249 10.38 10.38 <15 minutes 836 34.83 45.21 15-30 minutes 538 22.42 67.63 31-60 minutes 270 11.25 78.88 >1 hour 373 15.54 94.42 Don't know 134 5.58 100.00 Total 2400 100.00 No of travels to the poblacion Obs Mean Std. Dev. 2401 4.38 7.58 Fare to go to the poblacion Obs Mean Std. Dev. 2398 21.53 54.63 Access Accessibility: potable water supply Freq. Percent Better off 780 32.53 Worse off 365 15.22 Same 1253 52.25 Total 2398 100.00 Accessibility: electricity Freq. Percent Better off 474 19.86 Worse off 976 40.89 Same 931 39.00 Don't know 6 0.25 Total 2387 100.00 99 Accessibility: health care facility Freq. Percent Better off 658 27.41 Worse off 672 27.99 Same 1066 44.40 Don't know 5 0.21 Total 2401 100.00 Accessibility: school Freq. Percent Better off 839 34.97 Worse off 660 27.51 Same 894 37.27 Don't know 6 0.25 Total 2399 100.00 Accessibility: place of work Freq. Percent Better off 365 15.21 Worse off 1177 49.04 Same 857 35.71 Don't know 1 0.04 Total 2400 100.00 Accessibility: marketplace Freq. Percent Better off 531 22.13 Worse off 1030 42.93 Same 837 34.89 Don't know 1 0.04 Total 2399 100.00 Accessibility: capital Freq. Percent Better off 379 15.79 Worse off 1317 54.88 Same 700 29.17 Don't know 4 0.17 Total 2400 100.00 100 Accessibility: technology pertaining to source of income Freq. Percent Better off 454 18.91 Worse off 1066 44.40 Same 872 36.32 N/A 3 0.12 Don't know 6 0.25 Total 2401 100.00 Agricultural Production Engaged in crop farming? Freq. Percent Yes 1749 72.84 No 652 27.16 Total 2401 100.00 Engaged in raising livestock? Freq. Percent Yes 1906 79.38 No 495 20.62 Total 2401 100.00 Engaged in fishing? Freq. Percent Yes 252 10.50 No 2149 89.50 Total 2401 100.00 Housing and Amenities Type of building/house Freq. Percent Single house 2306 96.04 Duplex 29 1.21 Apartment/condo 1 0.04 Improvised house 58 2.42 Commercial/industrial/ 3 0.12 agricultural building Other 4 0.17 Total 2401 100.00 101 Roof: type of materials Freq. Percent Strong (galvanized iron, 929 38.69 aluminum, tile, concrete, brick etc,) Light (cogon, nipa) 1092 45.48 Salvage/makeshift materials 14 0.58 Mixed but predom. strong 218 9.08 Mixed but predom. light 145 6.04 Mixed but predom salvaged 3 0.12 Total 2401 100.00 Walls: type of materials Freq. Percent Strong 373 15.54 Light 1058 44.08 Salvaged 37 1.54 Mixed but predom. strong 503 20.96 Mixed but predom. light 401 16.71 Mixed but predom. Salvaged 28 1.17 Total 2400 100.00 Tenure status Freq. Percent Own house and lot 783 32.61 Rent house/room incl. lot 17 0.71 Own house, rent lot 142 5.91 Own house, rent-free lot with 1164 48.48 consent of owner Own house, rent-free lot without 134 5.58 consent of owner Rent-free house and lot with 161 6.71 consent of owner Total 2401 100.00 Floor area Freq. Percent Cum. <10 sq. meters 617 25.71 25.71 10-29 1004 41.83 67.54 30-49 370 15.42 82.96 50-69 283 11.79 94.75 70-89 62 2.58 97.33 90-119 41 1.71 99.04 120-149 10 0.42 99.46 150-199 3 0.13 99.58 >200 10 0.42 100.00 Total 2400 100.00 Obs Mean Std. Dev. No. of rooms 2400 2.70 1.29 102 Is there electricity in the house? Freq. Percent Yes 977 40.69 No 1424 59.31 Total 2401 100.00 Have radio/stereo? Freq. Percent No 1011 42.11 Yes 1390 57.89 Total 2401 100.00 Have refrigerator? Freq. Percent No 2189 91.17 Yes 212 8.83 Total 2401 100.00 Have gas stove/range? Freq. Percent No 2122 88.38 Yes 279 11.62 Total 2401 100.00 Have motorcycle/ tricycle? Freq. Percent No 2285 95.17 Yes 116 4.83 Total 2401 100.00 Have car/jeep? Freq. Percent No 2396 99.79 Yes 5 0.21 Total 2401 100.00 103 Annex 6: TOR for Qualitative Component TOR for the Qualitative Research Component of the KALAHI-CIDSS Impact Evaluation 1. The KALAHI-CIDSS Using CDD approaches, the KALAHI-CIDSS seeks the empowerment of local communities through their improved participation in local governance and involvement in the design, implementation and management of poverty reduction projects. This objective, which establishes a strong link between improved local governance and poverty reduction, is pursued through three components: (a) provision of community grants; (b) implementation support to strengthen formal and informal local institutions; and (c) monitoring and evaluation. The KALAHI-CIDSS will be implemented over six years in 4,270 villages and 177 municipalities in the 42 poorest provinces of the Philippines. The provinces are selected based on poverty data from the National Statistics and Coordination Board (NSCB). Using a municipal poverty mapping developed by the Asia-Pacific Policy Center, the poorest one-fourth of all municipalities within a target province are selected to participate in the KALAHI-CIDSS. All villages in a municipality are eligible to participate in the project. Implementation of the KALAHI-CIDSS is divided into four phases. Phase 1 was launched in January 2003 and covered 201 villages in 11 municipalities of 11 provinces. Phase 2 was launched in July 2003 in 1,302 villages and 56 municipalities of 11 additional provinces. Phase 3 will be launched in 200534 in 700 villages and 28 municipalities in 20 additional provinces and phase 4 will be launched in 2005 to cover the remaining 53 municipalities. The total project cost of the KALAHI-CIDSS is US$182.4 million ­ the Bank finances US$100 million, the national Government finances US$31.4 million, and villagers and local governments contribute US$51 million. The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) is implementing the KALAHI-CIDSS in 16 steps for the villagers to follow (see Annex 1). Through these16 steps, villagers prioritize their development needs, design activities, seek technical assistance, manage resources, and implement and operate development interventions. This organized experience in collective action ­ repeated three times in each targeted area ­ is designed to develop the capacity of poor villagers to help themselves and engage better with local governments and national agencies. As this capacity develops, villagers are also expected to take a more active role in improving the delivery of other pro-poor services and initiate new development activities. While the approach is appealing it is necessary to collect evidence about whether the KALAHI-CIDSS enhances not only community welfare, but also communities' ability to address and solve their own problems. 2. Background The DSWD and the World Bank are committed to a careful impact evaluation of the KALAHI-CIDSS. The evaluation follows the "good practices" prescribed by experts in that it collects quality baseline data 34Phase 3 implementation was originally scheduled to start in early 2004, but was delayed due to a reenactment of the 2004 National Budget. 104 in a representative sample of both intervention groups and matched comparison groups. As the source of ex-ante information for the KALAHI-CIDSS, a quantitative baseline survey was implemented in Phase 3 municipalities in the fall of 2003. It served as the first round of a panel survey that will track 2,400 households and 132 villages before, during, and after project implementation. Congruent with the project's objectives, the survey describes household and community conditions in the project areas, particularly characterizing the degree of empowerment, quality of governance and poverty level of intended KALAHI-CIDSS beneficiaries. This provides benchmark data by which relative successes (and failures) can be measured later on. Table A6.1: Survey Municipalities Province Intervention municipalities Comparison municipalities Albay Pio Duran Malinao Libon Polangui Capiz Ma-ayon Pontevedra Dumarao President Roxas Zamboanga del Sur Dinas Tambulig Dumingag* Dimataling Agusan del Sur Esperanza Bayugan San Luis Veruela * The baseline survey was originally implemented in Dinas and San Pablo. However, when DSWD decided not to include San Pablo in Phase 3, the enumerators went back to the field and collected data in Dumingag, which is a match to the comparison municipality Dimataling. The primary objective of the impact evaluation is to assess the impact and performance of the KALAHI- CIDSS by examining the extent to which the project's results concur with its initial objectives. The impact evaluation will inform policy makers and project implementers of the strengths and weaknesses of the innovative strategies of the KALAHI-CIDSS. Its specific objectives are to: 1. evaluate the extent to which current and future poverty is reduced in the target municipalities; 2. determine the impact of the KALAHI-CIDSS on poverty social capital, empowerment and governance; and 3. examine the processes by which poverty has been reduced and communities have been empowered. The quantitative instruments consist of household level and village official surveys. The survey instruments were designed in close cooperation with the DSWD to respond to the operational needs of KALAHI-CIDSS project management. 3. Purpose Qualitative research will be undertaken to complement the quantitative household and barangay official surveys. The purpose of this work will be to expand the KALAHI-CIDSS' information base and improve the understanding of the project's impact on poverty reduction, social capital, empowerment, and governance. The component will be designed to (a) verify and explain some of the findings and responses coming out of the quantitative survey; and (b) to provide richer, descriptive information regarding the key poverty and governance themes of the KALAHI, examining in greater depth the "hows" and "whys" of local level dynamics and context, 105 as well as what villagers themselves deem important. Such contextual issues are not captured fully using a quantitative survey instrument, especially for process and perception variables reflecting preferences, attitudes, and priorities. Qualitative methods will allow the project staff to understand important poverty and governance characteristics that are less readily amenable to quantification and that will be captured more fully through conversations and open-ended inter-active interview formats, than formulaic questionnaires. 4. Research locations The qualitative research will take place in the same municipalities and provinces that are covered by the quantitative surveys (see Table 1). The contractor is expected to collect data at both the barangay and municipal level. To allow for as much depth as possible, the contractor will conduct this research in one intervention and one (matched) comparison municipality in each of two provinces. Within each of these municipalities, a selection of five villages (already covered by the quantitative survey) will be researched. A total of four municipalities and twenty villages will thus be covered under the qualitative study. The specific research locations will be chosen by the contractor together with the DSWD and the World Bank. The final decision on research locations will be made by the DSWD. 5. Methodology and data collection The qualitative research assumes that much can be learned about critical KALAHI themes and outcomes through an in-depth study of selected areas. The component will be developed by the contractor in close cooperation with the DSWD and the World Bank. It will be based on the insights learned from the quantitative baseline survey and will focus on selected themes identified, primarily those of social capital, empowerment and governance. The qualitative research will also aim to provide additional information on the effectiveness of project implementation. Examples of themes to cover include: · Participation in implementation of KALAHI and non-KALAHI projects · Transparency and access to information · Accountability · Corruption · Complaints handling; conflict and dispute resolution mechanisms · Local government practices, governance, decision-making processes · Roles of traditional and other informal leaders · Social capital (groups and networks, trust and solidarity, collective action and cooperation, social inclusion, information and communication). 106 The qualitative component will consist of focus group discussions and key informant interviews at two levels: · in the barangays: with community members (including different groups such as women, men, youth, marginalized groups, indigenous peoples, project implementation teams etc.), formal and informal leaders, and KALAHI facilitators · at the municipal level: local government officials and staff Field data collection techniques will also include direct observation, personal narratives, and review of project documentation such as village social maps and wealth ranking documents, project proposals, and financial records. The field teams will spend at least 15 days in each village. The contractor is expected to sub-contract tasks outlined in this TOR if there are other individuals/firms/organizations with comparative advantage in undertaking specific parts of the assignment. 6. Budget TBD. 7. Deliverables and disbursement Of the total fee, the World Bank will pay the contractor · 10 % on acceptance of the contract (estimated date February 15, 2005). · 40% on acceptance of qualitative design report and data collection instruments (estimated date March 1, 2005). · 25% on acceptance of progress report on the qualitative component (estimated date April 15, 2005). · 25% on acceptance of final report on the qualitative component (estimated date July 1, 2005). 8. Documentation and Report Format All field researchers will keep detailed field notes from their field work. The notes should include their personal observations from the day's meetings and observations, research notes from the discussions and interviews, and useful quotations. The contractor will prepare a final qualitative report that includes: · Executive Summary · Introduction and background · Purpose of the research, key evaluation themes · Methodology 107 · Main thematic issues and findings from the 20 villages. Some preliminary analysis and references should be made to the findings of the quantitative surveys · Conclusion and recommendation Annexes: · Summary of each village and municipality ­ basic data and study findings · Interview guides 108