collecting data to measure social protection programme

Collecting Data to Measure Social Protection Programme Coverage: Pilot-testing the Social Protection Questionnaire Module in Zimbabwe – A methodological report

01Collecting Data to Measure Social Protection Programme Coverage

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

I . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

II . Social Protection Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06

III . Objectives of Pilot-Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07

IV . Overview of Zimbabwe Social Protection Programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08

V . Methodology and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 09

VI . Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

VII . Fieldwork Observations and Suggested Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

VIII . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

IX . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

A . Zimbabwe Map with Provinces and Districts Where the Social Protection Module was Pilot-Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

B . Zimbabwe Social Protection Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

C . List of Persons and Organizations Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The pilot-testing of the Social Protection Module in Zimbabwe was led by the Data and Analytics Section, Division of Data, Research and Policy (DRP) . The process was led by Chiho Suzuki, Statistics and Monitoring Specialist, and Priscilla Idele, Senior Adviser, Statistics and Monitoring, under the direction of Tessa Wardlaw, Associate Director of the Data and Analytics Section . Valuable inputs and guidance were provided by colleagues at UNICEF New York headquarters , Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) team: Attila Hancioglu, Global MICS Coordinator (MICS); Turgay Unalan, Household Survey Specialist (MICS); Bo Pedersen (MICS), Household Survey Specialist; Shane Khan, Household Survey Specialist; and HIV/AIDS Section, Child Protection, Social Inclusion Section (Programme Division (PD)): Tom Fenn, Senior Advisor, Protection, Care and Support; Peter Gross, Child Protection Specialist; Jennifer Yablonski, Policy Specialist; and David Stewart, Chief of Child Poverty and Social Protection .

This study is the product of extensive efforts and collaboration with experts at various levels . Special thanks go to Zhuzhi Moore, Household Survey Specialist (Consultant), who provided technical support throughout the pilot-testing process; national counterparts at the Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (ZIMSTAT) and the Zimbabwe Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare (MPSLSW); Eva Quintana, UNICEF/ESARO Regional MICS Coordinator; Noriko Izumi, Chief, Child Protection; Samson Muradzikwa, Chief, Social Policy; Vikas Singh, Chief, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation; Leon Muwoni, Child Protection Specialist; Lloyd Muchemwa, Child Protection Specialist; Debrah Maleni, Socio-Economic Analyst; and Rumbidzai Tizora, MICS Secondary Analysis Consultant at the UNICEF Zimbabwe Country Office .

Special note of appreciation goes to the residents of Bindura (Mashonaland Central Province), Chitungwiza and Epworth (Harare Province), and Goromonzi (Mashonaland East Province) for their generosity and willingness to participate in this study .

The report was edited by Natalie Leston .

The layout and design were completed by Era Porth .


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Social protection is the set of public and private policies and programmes aimed at preventing, reducing and eliminating economic and social vulnerabilities to poverty and deprivation . Increasing volatility at the macro and household level, the persistence of inequalities and exclusion, threats posed to sustainable development by climate change, and changing population trends have heightened the relevance and political momentum for social protection across regions . UNICEF is committed to social protection as part of its global mandate to advocate for the realization of children’s rights . Within UNICEF’s equity-focused approach to development, social protection is a crucial policy tool for achieving equity and social justice . As an attempt to measure coverage of social protection programmes, a global indicator, ‘Proportion of the poorest households who received external economic support in the past three months’, was developed to measure the extent to which economic support is reaching households severely affected by various shocks .

Guided by the proposed indicator definition in the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) Global AIDS Response Progress Reporting (GARPR) document, which defines specific types of support, and in consultation with technical staff in the Data and Analytics Section, the Global Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) team, and the HIV and AIDS, Child Protection and Social Inclusion and Policy Sections, a draft set of questions was compiled for household surveys, namely the Social Protection Module . The team agreed to pilot-test the module in a number of country settings in a different regions in a ‘stand-alone approach’ (i .e ., outside of existing surveys such as MICS), in order to accumulate experiences and evidence on country customization and to inform the development of a standardized module to be used in national population-based surveys such as MICS and Demographic Health Surveys (DHS) .


The key objectives of the pilot-testing are to ascertain: (1) the extent to which the draft set of questions are understood by the intended respondents; (2) whether the questions flow and structure/skip patterns work; and (3) the level of customization needed for each country . Pilot-testing of the draft module will facilitate documentation of the approach, processes and lessons learned in a number of countries in different regions . The experience will also facilitate an evidence-based process of the development of a Social Protection Module for household surveys that can be customized for countries to measure the extent to which the poorest households are reached by social protection programmes .

Kenya was the first country where the draft Social Protection Module was first tested . Zimbabwe was selected as the second country for pilot-testing on the basis of a strong presence of social protection programmes (including the Harmonised Social Cash Transfer (HSCT) programme that targets poor, labour-constrained households) and the national capacity in implementing large household surveys . Localities with high concentrations of HSCT recipient households were selected for the pilot-testing in four districts: Bindura (Mashonaland Central Province), Chitungwiza and Epworth (Harare Province; see map in Appendix A), and Goromonzi (Mashonaland East Province) .

The exercise in Zimbabwe was carried out between 29 February and 11 March 2015 . In order to reach a minimum number of 50 recipient households, the team was guided by the administrative records and visited only households that were known to receive HSCT . With support from the Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (ZIMSTAT) and the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare (MPSLSW), the team was able to identify four districts, out of which wards with high concentrations of recipients were targeted for the data collection . All HSCT recipient households were visited (except those where eligible respondents were not at home at the time of the fieldwork) . A total of 100 recipient households were interviewed . During the last day of fieldwork, interviewers did a random walk-through and administered the module to all households in the locality, without knowing in advance whether they were HSCT recipients . A total of 20 random households were interviewed, with the goal to test the question content and flow and the level of knowledge and understanding of social protection programmes with all households in the community, not only those that are HSCT recipients .

A customized draft Zimbabwe Social Protection Module was prepared based on the Kenya piloting experience, as well as consultations with colleagues in Zimbabwe (UNICEF Country Office and national counterparts) . The draft Zimbabwe Social Protection Module was further modified and consolidated to reflect discussions during interviewer training, field practice, fieldwork experience, and consultations in the country . The set of questions included in the Zimbabwe Social Protection Module are related to the variables needed to calculate the global indicator (see ‘Zimbabwe Social Protection Module’ in Appendix B) . The Social Protection modules piloted in Kenya and Zimbabwe will be further modified and used for piloting in a third country, with the goal to prepare a ‘Standard Social Protection Module’ that is designed to be incorporated into household surveys such as MICS and DHS, or to be used as a stand-alone instrument in surveys targeting social protection .

Additional country-specific questions related to variables critical for monitoring the national social protection response, essential to meet national response data needs, can be added to the ‘Standard Social Protection Module’ as necessary . Questions that provoke responses that are more in-depth or not easily collected in large-scale surveys, such as source, length of enrolment and frequency of cash transfers, can be asked through qualitative research, such as focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with key informants and recipients .


I . INTRODUCTION

Social protection is the set of public and private policies and programmes aimed at preventing, reducing and eliminating economic and social vulnerabilities to poverty and deprivation . Increasing volatility at the macro and household level, the persistence of inequalities and exclusion, threats posed to sustainable development by climate change, and changing population trends have heightened the relevance and political momentum for social protection globally . UNICEF is committed to social protection as part of its global mandate to advocate for the realization of children’s rights . Within UNICEF’s equity-focused approach to development, social protection is a crucial policy tool for achieving equity and social justice .

It is well known that social and economic shocks affect the health conditions of individuals and undermine household resilience . These shocks affect the capacity of families to care for their children and remove barriers to services that stand in the way of achieving goals and progress for children . Poor households, in particular, are vulnerable to the impacts of these shocks through the increased burden of health costs; the illness and death of household members, leading to labour constraints in the household and the further impoverishment of children who have lost one or both parents, or their primary caregiver; and other vulnerable children, causing them to drop out of school and engage in harmful child labour and other risky behaviours .

Consequently, many development partners, including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the U .S . President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and United Nations agencies are making considerable investments to mitigate the economic impacts on household poverty through providing social assistance and livelihood support . UNICEF, as a global leader in social protection, is supporting more than 232 social protection interventions in 104 countries; about a third of these interventions are cash transfers reaching more than 12 million households . Furthermore, in its Strategic Plan 2014–2017, UNICEF includes social inclusion (inclusion of disadvantaged and excluded children and households) as a key outcome, and incorporates indicators specific to social protection, reflecting its commitment to strengthening child-sensitive social protection systems to reach disadvantaged and vulnerable children and their households .

As an attempt to measure coverage of social protection programmes, a global indicator, ‘Proportion of the poorest households who received external economic support in the past three months’, was developed to measure the extent to which economic support is reaching households severely affected by various shocks .1

External economic support is defined as ‘free economic help’ and includes various social protection schemes – e .g ., cash grants, assistance for school fees, material support for education, income-generation support in cash or kind, food assistance provided at the household level, or material or financial support for shelter, excluding transfers or assistance from family members, relatives or neighbours . While developed for monitoring of the global AIDS response, the indicator enables monitoring the extent to which social protection programmes are reaching disadvantaged and vulnerable households, by focusing on poverty-related determinants of vulnerability – that is, economic support (social assistance and livelihood assistance) to the poorest households .

1 Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, Global AIDS Response Progress Reporting 2014: Construction of core indicators for monitoring the 2011 United Nations Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS, UNAIDS, Geneva, 2014.


II . SOCIAL PROTECTION MODULEGuided by the indicator definition in the UNAIDS GARPR document, which defined specific types of support, and in consultation with technical staff at the Data Analytics Section, the Global MICS team, HIV/AIDS and Child Protection and Social Inclusion Sections, a draft set of questions was compiled .2 While agreeing that the indicator responds to the need to assess who is covered by social protection services and also to UNICEF’s interest of linking child outcomes with services, several considerations were taken into account: (1) a focus on a few universal concepts that are similar and identical in all countries; (2) clear concepts that can be understood the same way by survey managers, interviewers and respondents,; (3) minimize too much customization and ambiguous concepts that could affect data quality; (4) knowledge that the wealth index (which this indicator draws on) has an urban bias, and the bottom quintile cannot be compared across countries; and (5) that data collected can be validated (against service/programme records and/or other surveys) . The team agreed to pilot-test the module in different country settings and a few regions in a ‘stand-alone approach’ (i .e ., outside of existing survey programmes such as MICS) to accumulate experiences and evidence on country customization and to inform the development of a standardized module to be used in national population-based surveys such as MICS and DHS .

The consultation also led to a consensus on key domains and concepts that are considered important for social protection programmes, including:

a . Cash transfers

i . Cash for work

ii . Direct cash receipt

b . In-kind transfers

i . School material

ii . Housing material

iii . Agricultural inputs

c . Food

i . Food

ii . Food vouchers

iii . School feeding

iv . Food for work

Other important but more difficult to measure and complex concepts included: (1) exemption; and (2) subsidy for specific services .

The team also agreed on the following:

1 . Measure support received at the household level (has any member of the household received xx support?) .

2 . Respondent should be head of household/or any adult household member age 15 or older .

2 The process was initiated at a meeting at headquarters in February 2012.


3 . ‘External’ needs to be clearly defined so that interviewers and respondents all interpret ‘external’ the same way .

4 . Countries selected for pilot-testing the module should meet these criteria: have a social protection programme in place; have available service and programme data; and have conducted other household surveys .

Drawing on these agreements, a draft set of questions along with a draft tabulation plan was prepared .

III. OBJECTIVES OF PILOT-TESTINGThe key objectives of the pilot-testing are to ascertain:

1 . the extent to which the draft set of questions are understood by the intended respondents;

2 . whether the questions flow, and the structure/skip patterns work well; and

3 . the level of customization needed for each country .

Pilot-testing of the draft Social Protection Module will facilitate documentation of the approach, processes and lessons learned in a number of countries and regions . The experience will also facilitate an evidence-based process of the development of a module for household surveys that can be customized for countries to measure the extent to which the poorest households are reached by social protection programmes .

The implementation involves the following steps:

• Adaptation of the draft Social Protection Module and related interviewers’ instructions to a country’s context;

• Interviewer training and feedback on the country-specific Social Protection Module;

• Pilot-testing the module and refining the questions/structure as needed;

• Administering the refined version of the module in the field;

• Comparison of data collected from households against administrative records; and

• Documentation of the approach, processes and lessons learned .

After Kenya, Zimbabwe is the second country for pilot-testing because of a strong presence of social protection programmes (including the Harmonised Social Cash Transfer, or HSCT) and the national capacity in implementing large household surveys . Four districts (Bindura, Chitungwiza, Epworth and Goromonzi) with high concentrations of JSCT programme beneficiaries were selected for the pilot-testing .


IV. OVERVIEW OF ZIMBABWE SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMMES3,4

Zimbabwe is a low-income country, where more than 6 in 10 people (67 per cent) live in rural areas and 1 in 2 people are under the age of 18 (50 .3 per cent) .5 About 1 million children have been orphaned due to HIV and AIDS and other causes .6 Some of the threats children are facing include high infant mortality (55 per 1,000 live births), high malnutrition (27 .6 per cent stunting among children under 5), and secondary net attendance ratio (adjusted) at less than 60 per cent (57 .5 per cent) .7 The labour force participation rate is almost 80 per cent among adolescents age 15–19 (92 .0 per cent among those in rural areas vs . 46 .7 per cent among those in urban areas) .8

Zimbabwe is challenged with severe poverty, with more than 60 per cent of households (62 .6 per cent) in rural and urban areas with per capita consumption expenditures below the upper poverty line (76 .0 per cent in rural areas; 38 .2 per cent in urban areas) . In terms of extreme poverty, about 4 per cent of urban households are below the lower poverty line (i .e ., low prevalence of extremely poor households in urban areas), compared with 22 .9 per cent of households in rural areas .9

Zimbabwe has a rich social protection scheme and a range of social protection instruments . Social protection programmes, however, are fragmented and implemented by multiple ministries and agencies . The Government of Zimbabwe implements a plethora of safety net programmes, including fee waivers, cash and in-kind transfers, public works and social care services .

Some of the main programmes are summarized below .

• HSCT: implemented with support from UNICEF alongside multiple long-standing cash transfer programmes, and targeting poor, labour-constrained households .

• Monthly Maintenance Allowance (under Public Assistance): support to elderly and disabled poor and indigent families .

• Assistance for Food: includes school feeding, seasonal targeted assistance, or health and nutrition safety net .

• Cash or Food for Work/Productive Community Works: numerous public works programmes are implemented by the Government, the World Food Programme (WFP), USAID, the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) .

• The Basic Education Assistance Module (BEAM): provides school fee waivers with funding from the Government (for secondary students) and donors (for primary students) .

• Assisted Medical Treatment Orders (AMTO) and Maternal Vouchers: fee waivers for health care .

• Pauper Burial: burial grants for the families of deceased paupers .

3 Blank, Lorraine, ‘Zimbabwe: Crafting a coherent social protection system – Policy note’, Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, Harare, Zimbabwe, November 2014.4 Government of Zimbabwe, ‘Manual of Operations for the Zimbabwe Harmonised Social Cash Transfer Programme’, Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, Harare, Zimbabwe, June 2014. 5 Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, ‘Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014: Key findings’, ZIMSTAT, Harare, Zimbabwe, 20146 UNAIDS 2013 HIV/AIDS estimates. 7 Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, ‘Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014: Key findings’, ZIMSTAT, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2014.8 Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, ‘Zimbabwe Labour Force Survey’, ZIMSTAT, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2014. 9 Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, ‘Poverty and Poverty Datum Line Analysis in Zimbabwe 2011/12’, ZIMSTAT, Harare, Zimbabwe, April 2013.


The national programme’s records are managed centrally in Harare on an electronic Management Information System (MIS) at the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare (Department of Social Welfare, or DSW) . The DSW/MIS maintains information on households that have been identified as potential beneficiaries, information collected during assessment of households for possible targeting (ranking based on eligibility criteria, as well as on household socio-economic status, size and composition, number of dependants and dependency ratio) . Once households are enrolled in the programme, the MIS maintains records of disbursement/payments made to households that have been enrolled in the programme – month/year and amount . It is the responsibility of the District Social Welfare Office to maintain and submit information on beneficiaries and disbursements in respective districts to the central level .

V. METHODOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTATIONBefore the pilot-testing started, a series of virtual consultations were conducted with the UNICEF Zimbabwe Country Office and national counterparts . Based on the feedback obtained, the draft Social Protection Module and related interviewers’ instructions were customized for Zimbabwe .

The entire pilot-testing exercise took place between 29 February and 11 March 2015 . Interviewer training took place between from 1 March to 4 March 2015, at the Holiday Inn in Harare . Attendees included seven interviewers, two data-entry operators and one data processing programmer with previous experience with MICS and DHS surveys conducted in Zimbabwe . A number of staff from ZIMSTAT and the MPSLSW with supervisor or coordinator duties also attended . The Zimbabwe-customized Social Protection Module was reviewed thoroughly in English (with translation to Shona, commonly spoken in the data collection areas) . The interviewers also practiced administering the Social Protection Module in the field in households that were not selected for data collection .

Fieldwork took place for five days between 5 March and 10 March 2015 . In order to reach a minimum number of 50 recipient households, the team used a ‘quota sample’, whereby it was guided by administrative records and visited only households that were known to receive HSCT . With support from ZIMSTAT and the MPSLSW, the team was able to identify localities with four districts (Bindura, Chitungwiza, Epworth and Goromonzi), out of which wards with high concentration of recipients were targeted for the data collection . All HSCT-recipient households were visited (except those where eligible respondents were not at home at the time of fieldwork) . A total of 100 recipient households were interviewed .

Once an adult household member was identified as the Social Protection Module respondent, the following consent was read to him/her:

WE ARE FROM THE ZIMBABWE NATIONAL STATISTICS AGENCY AND ARE COLLECTING DATA CONCERNED WITH ECONOMIC SUPPORT AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE FAMILIES IN YOUR AREA . THIS INFORMATION WILL BE USED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES . I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO SOMEONE IN THIS HOUSEHOLD ABOUT THIS SUBJECT . THE INTERVIEW WILL TAKE ABOUT 15–20 MINUTES . ALL THE INFORMATION WE OBTAIN WILL REMAIN STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL AND YOUR ANSWERS WILL NEVER BE SHARED WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN OUR PROJECT TEAM .

If permission was given, the interviewer proceeded with the interview . If not, the interview ended .

Because the minimum recipient household quota was met in the first four days of fieldwork, during the last day of fieldwork, 10 March 2015, interviewers did a walk-through and interviewed an additional 20 households which were selected for interview based on their proximity to the other households where the quota sample was


located .10 The goal of this exercise was to test the question content and flow, as well as the level of knowledge and understanding of social protection programmes with all households in the community, not only those that are HSCT recipients .

During the fieldwork, the team was guided by ZIMSTA and MPSLSW local officers, who accompanied the interviewers to each of the recipient households, an approach that proved very useful .

During the fieldwork, the team tested all of the questions in the revised module for comprehension by respondents, use of correct terminology, flow of questions and skip patterns, and length of interview and fieldwork logistics .

In rural areas, interviewers sometimes offered more in-depth explanation of the concepts to respondents; this was not the case in urban areas . Therefore, the nature of the questioning and approach used by interviewers were not always standardized .

The team consolidated observations from the fieldwork on each question in the Zimbabwe Social Protection Module, in terms of concepts, measurements and flow/structure, and the comprehensiveness of the questions to meet the following needs: (1) ability to measure the GARPR indicator for monitoring and tracking progress at the global level; and (2) ability to measure coverage and monitor progress in national social protection programmes .

The experiences in the field were discussed daily with the interviewers, and also shared at the end with the wider technical team in the Zimbabwe Country Office and UNICEF New York .

Table 1 shows the number of households that were administered the Zimbabwe Social Protection Module, according to whether they were targeted and by residence, province and district . A total of 120 households were interviewed .

VI. OBSERVATIONS AND KEY FINDINGS This section summarizes the observations and key findings from the fieldwork, and suggested approaches based on the Zimbabwe fieldwork .

1: Reception and respondents’ willingness to report

In all of the localities visited, the interviewers were welcomed in the targeted households . The module was administered mainly in the Shona language .

The entry points in each of the communities were the local officers from ZIMSTAT and/or MPSLSW . They accompanied and introduced the data collection teams to the respective households . This proved to be a very effective way of building rapport and generating a positive response .

10 A small number of not targeted (randomly selected) households were interviewed in the afternoon of 9 March. However, information on whether the household was targeted based on administrative records was not entered in the questionnaire. Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish which households interviewed on 9 March were not targeted. This could almost certainly result in an underestimate of the agreement rate between the number of HSCT-recipient households based on administrative records and those reported in the Zimbabwe Social Protection Module. This should be fixed when designing the Social Protection Module for the next piloting country.


TABLE 1: Number of households that were administered the Zimbabwe Social Protection Module, by whether they were targeted, and according to residence, province and district, Zimbabwe 2015

Targeted/Not targeted/Residence/Province/District Number of interviewed households

Targeted/Not targeted1

Targeted (Bindura, Chitungwiza, Epworth, Goromonzi) 100

Not targeted (Goromonzi) 20

Residence

Urban 46

Rural 74

Province

Mashonaland Central (Bindura District) 23

Mashonaland East (Goromonz District) 51

Harare (Chitungwiza; Epworth) 46

District

Bindura 23

Chitungwiza 31

Epworth 15

Goromonzi 51

Total 120

1 Targeted: households identified in advance from administrative records as HSCT recipients. Not targeted: households interviewed randomly and not targeted in advance.

2: Analysis of data collected during fieldwork

As indicated in Table 1, a total of 120 households were identified for interview in four districts belonging to three provinces: Chitungwiza and Epworth (Harare), Bindura (Mashonaland Central Province), Goromonzi (Mashonaland East Province) . A total of 100 households were targeted and selected based on current enrolment in the HSCT programme . Another 20 households were not targeted but were randomly interviewed, without previous knowledge about whether they were HSCT recipients .

Table 2 shows the number of households that ever heard of specific social protection programmes in Zimbabwe, by background characteristics .


TABLE 2: Number of households that ever heard of specific social protection programmes, by background characteristics, Zimbabwe 2015

Background Characteristic

Number of households that ever heard of:

Har

mo

nis

ed

cash

tra

nsf

er

(HS

CT

)

Mo

nth

ly

mai

nte

nan

ce

allo

wan

ce

Ass

ista

nce

fo

r fo

od

Cas

h o

r fo

od

fo

r w

ork

Vo

uch

ers

for

hea

lth

se

rvic

es

Form

aliz

ed

inco

me

gen

erat

ion

Pau

per

bu

rial

An

y o

ther

fo

rmal

ized

p

rog

ram

mes


Targeted 96 6 62 60 44 53 12 12

Not targeted 14 4 15 14 5 16 4 8

Age of household head

15–39 16 1 13 8 6 13 5 3

40–49 21 2 17 17 6 19 3 5

50–59 12 3 10 7 6 6 3 2

60–69 25 0 15 22 14 15 2 5

70+ 36 4 22 20 17 16 3 5

Sex of household head

Male 48 4 36 32 19 29 8 10

Female 62 6 41 42 30 40 8 10

Presence of an orphan in the household2

No orphan 62 4 46 39 28 39 10 12

At least one orphan 48 6 31 35 21 30 6 8

Province

Harare 45 3 29 21 19 20 9 6

Mashonaland Central 23 2 15 18 13 14 0 4

Mashonaland East 42 5 33 35 17 35 7 10

District

Bindura 23 2 15 18 13 14 0 4

Chitungwiza 31 0 20 14 13 15 6 3

Epworth 14 3 9 7 6 5 3 3

Goromonzi 42 5 33 35 17 35 7 10

Total 110 10 77 74 49 69 16 20

1 Targeted: 100 households identified in advance from administrative records as HSCT recipients. Not targeted: 20 households interviewed randomly and not targeted in advance.2 Single or double orphan.


TABLE 2A: Number of households that ever heard of HSCT and that report the name of the organization that provides HSCT, by type of organization, Zimbabwe 2015

Type/Name of organizationNumber of households that report the name of organization that provides HSCT

Social Welfare 49

Government/Government Welfare 30

Social Services 1

NGOs 5

Donors/UNICEF 4

Africa Care 1

Church 1

Male CO-OP 1

SOS 1

Total 95

Table 2a shows the number of households that ever heard of HSCT and that cite the name of the organization that provides HSCT, by type of the organization . As expected, the majority of the households, 80 out of 95, correctly reported the Government as the main provider of HSCT . The various categories reported under Government are: Social Welfare, Government/Government Welfare and Social Services . In the future, interviewer training ought to emphasize that all of these categories should be grouped under ‘Government’ .


Table 3 shows the number of households that ever received specific SP programmes, by background character-istics . Since the targeting was done based on HSCT recipient status, it is no surprise that 92 of the 120 inter-viewed households reported receiving HSCT . Among the 100 targeted households, 91 reported receiving HSCT; among the 20 not targeted households, only 1 had ever received HSCT . Thirty-five households reported receiv-ing assistance for food and 28 received cash or food for work .11

11 In the targeted districts, the Monthly Maintenance Allowance Programme was being phased out and replaced with HSCT. Therefore, it was expected that the number of households receiving Monthly Maintenance Allowances would be insignificant.

TABLE 3: Number of households that ever received specific social protection programmes, by background characteristics, Zimbabwe 2015


Number of households that ever received:

Har

mo

nis

ed

cash

tra

nsf

er

(HS

CT

)

Mo

nth

ly

mai

nte

nan

ce

allo

wan

ce

Ass

ista

nce

fo

r fo

od

Cas

h o

r fo

od

fo

r w

ork

Vo

uch

ers

for

hea

lth

se

rvic

es

Form

aliz

ed

inco

me

gen

erat

ion

Pau

per

bu

rial

An

y o

ther

fo

rmal

ized

p

rog

ram

mes


Targeted 91 2 28 22 8 4 0 2

Not targeted 1 0 7 6 0 0 0 3


15–39 12 0 4 0 1 1 0 0

40–49 14 0 7 9 1 0 0 2

50–59 12 1 5 0 2 2 0 0

60–69 24 0 6 8 4 0 0 1

70+ 30 1 13 11 0 1 0 2


Male 38 1 14 10 2 1 0 1

Female 54 1 21 18 6 3 0 4


No orphan 51 1 20 14 2 1 0 3

At least one orphan 41 1 15 14 6 3 0 2

Province

Harare 45 2 11 0 5 3 0 1

Mashonaland Central 23 0 8 12 3 0 0 1

Mashonaland East 24 0 16 16 0 1 0 3

District

Bindura 23 0 8 12 3 0 0 1

Chitungwiza 31 0 10 0 3 1 0 0

Epworth 14 2 1 0 2 2 0 1

Goromonzi 24 0 16 16 0 1 0 3

Total 92 2 35 28 8 4 0 5



Table 4 shows the number of households that have ever received HSCT by distribution of last time HSCT was received, and the number that are still eligible (Zimbabwe-specific request), according to background characteristics . The majority of recipients, 83 of the 87 that reported time last received, received HSCT 0–3 months ago . Eighty-one of the 92 recipients reported that they were still eligible .

TABLE 4: Among households that have ever received HSCT, distribution by last time received and number that are still eligible, according to background characteristics, Zimbabwe 2015


Number of households that received HSCT: Number of households still

eligible to receive HSCT0–3 months ago 4–6 months ago


Targeted 82 4 80

Not targeted 1 0 1


15–39 10 1 8

40–49 12 0 12

50–59 10 1 12

60–69 23 1 21

70+ 28 1 28


Male 34 0 35

Female 49 4 46


No orphan 44 3 46

At least one orphan 39 1 35

Province

Harare 40 2 42

Mashonaland Central 22 0 20

Mashonaland East 21 2 19

District

Bindura 22 0 20

Chitungwiza 30 1 28

Epworth 10 1 14

Goromonzi 21 2 19

Total 83 4 81



Table 5 shows the number of households with at least one member age 5–24 years currently attending school that have at least one member who received support for school fees and material school support during the current school year, by background characteristics . In 11 of the 75 households with at least one member age 5–24 years currently attending school, at least one school-going member receives support for school fees and one receives material school support .

TABLE 4: Among households with at least one member age 5–24 years currently attending school, num-ber that received support for school fees and that received material school support for at least one child during the current school year, by background characteristics, Zimbabwe 2015


Households with at least one member 5–24 years currently attending school, number with someone

who, for the current school year, received:Number of households

with at least one member 5–24 years currently

attending school School fees Material support


Targeted 11 1 74

Not targeted 0 0 1


15–39 1 0 10

40–49 3 0 13

50–59 1 0 12

60–69 3 0 18

70+ 3 1 22


Male 4 1 31

Female 7 0 44


No orphan 2 0 37

At least one orphan 9 1 38

Province

Harare 6 1 40

Mashonaland Central 0 0 16

Mashonaland East 5 0 19

District

Bindura 0 0 16

Chitungwiza 4 0 28

Epworth 2 1 12

Goromonzi 5 0 19

Total 11 1 75


Interviewers were asked to record the time at the beginning and at the end of the interview for the Social Protection questions only, excluding the time taken to list members of the household . The average time for completing ONLY the Social Protection section of the Zimbabwe Social Protection Module was 12 minutes .


VII. FIELDWORK OBSERVATIONS AND SUGGESTED APPROACHESPilot-testing of the Zimbabwe Social Protection Module provided crucial evidence and observations on the way the questions were understood by the respondents, the accuracy of the response categories and the question skip patterns . The fieldwork findings were extremely helpful for the team to identify questions and response categories that worked well and those that didn’t .

1. Overall observations

Observations on the clarity of questions and on the flow and structure of the module are summarized below:

• Questions were well understood, except in rural areas, where ‘Harmonised Social Cash Transfer’ is not commonly used or understood . Rather, explanations were needed, such as: money for welfare, elderly, disabled, orphans, or for the poor .

• Non-recipients are also aware of social protection programmes .

• Targeting approaches for the different national programmes are different, thus limiting the optimal impact of such programmes, such as HSCT compared with Monthly Maintenance Allowance, com-pared with BEAM .

• Support for HSCT and Monthly Maintenance Allowance is perceived to be provided mainly by the Government of Zimbabwe . Other organizations in the same locality are also reported, including NGOs, donors, foundations and churches .

• Main types of support are cash transfers through the HSCT programme; assistance for food; cash or food for work; and school support in terms of fees .

• Other, less frequent types of support include assistance for Monthly Maintenance Allowance,12 formalized income-generation support, health vouchers and assistance for shelter .

2. Suggested approach

Based on the fieldwork experience and consultations in both Kenya and Zimbabwe, a suggested approach consists of devising a set of suggested ‘standardized’ questions that are related to variables going into calculating the global indicator, to be included in a draft ‘Standardized Social Protection Module’ . The draft standardized module will be used for piloting in another country . This module is designed to be incorporated into household surveys such as MICS and DHS, or to be used as a stand-alone instrument in surveys targeting social protection .

Additional country-specific questions related to variables critical for monitoring the national social protection response, which is essential to meet national response data needs, can be added to the ‘Standardized Social Protection Module’ as necessary . Questions that provoke responses that are more qualitative in nature, such as source, length of enrolment and frequency of cash transfers, can be asked through qualitative research, such as focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with key informants and recipients .

12 In the targeted districts, the Monthly Maintenance Allowance Programme was being phased out and replaced with HSCT. Therefore, it was expected that the number of households receiving Monthly Maintenance Allowances would be insignificant.


VIII. DISCUSSION1: Social Protection Module content

The pilot-testing of the Social Protection Module in Zimbabwe provided an opportunity to further refine the draft Social Protection Module for further assessment and piloting in a third country .

• Based on the lessons learned during the Zimbabwe piloting, we recommend that the Social Protec-tion Module include questions on:

P Cash transfers: knowledge and last time receivedP School fee support – for each child age 5–24 years currently attending school; for the current

school yearP Material support for school – for each child age 5–24 years currently attending school; for the

current school yearP Other support – income generation, public works, health vouchers, shelter, agricultural inputs, food

• Questions on health insurance to be included in the Individual (Woman’s and Man’s) Questionnaire .

• Question on knowledge of social protection programmes to be asked of all respondents .

• Question on last time received to be asked of recipient households only .

2: Validation of the data vis-à-vis administrative records

The targeted approach of administering the Social Protection Module to households that were known to receive HSCT based on administrative records required coordination with ZIMSTAT and the MPSLSW beforehand to obtain lists of the recipient households . This methodology does not allow for proper validation of the pilot-testing findings against the administrative record data, since the administrative records are used in the first place for identifying and reaching the recipient households . In Zimbabwe, there was a 92 per cent agreement between the findings from the pilot-testing and the administrative records .13

3: Next steps

• For the next country where the draft and customized version of the module will be tested, the inter-viewing will be standardized – i .e ., there will be no elaboration or explanation of terms and concepts included in the questionnaires .

• A geographical area with high coverage of cash transfers will be identified, out of which sub-areas with high concentration of recipient households will be identified . Clusters will be identified within the sub-areas identified, and households will be randomly selected for pilot-testing of the draft module (i .e ., no advance identification/selection of recipient households based on administrative records) . Interviewers will not know in advance whether the households they are walking into are receiving any external assistance .

• Data collected will be validated against administrative records .

13 A small number of not targeted (randomly selected) households may have been reported as ‘targeted’ – i.e., that they were recipients based on the administrative records. Only households that were interviewed on the last day (20 households) were considered as not targeted, as this was the intention of the data collection during that day. However, information on whether the household was targeted was not entered in the questionnaire. A small number of the not-targeted households were in fact interviewed earlier. Since it is not possible to distinguish these not-targeted households, it is very likely that there is an underestimation of the agreement rate between the number of HSCT-recipient households based on administrative records and those reported in the Zimbabwe Social Protection Module.


IX. CONCLUSIONThe key objectives of the pilot-testing in Zimbabwe was to ascertain: (1) the extent to which the draft set of questions are understood by the intended respondents; (2) whether the questions flow and structure and skip patterns work; and (3) the level of customization needed for each country . Recommendations and suggested approaches documented in this report from the second round of pilot-testing will inform the upcoming pilot-testing in a third country in a region outside of Africa .


APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Zimbabwe Map with Provinces and Districts Where the Social Protection Module was Pilot-Tested


APPENDIX B Zimbabwe Social Protection Module

HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION PANEL HH

HH1. Name of locality:

______________________________________________HH2. Household number:___ ___ ___

HH3. Interviewer name: HH4. Supervisor name:

Name______________________________________________ Name______________________________________________

HH5. Day / Month / Year of interview:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

HH6. AreA:

Urban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

HH7A.

Province Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .___

HH7B.

Province Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ___ ___

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE WITH SOCIAL PROTECTION MODULE

Please select appropriate box below after the initial contact to the household:

Household member age 15 or older available. Identify a respondent to the Social Protection Module Go to Consent (below).

No household member age 15 or older End the interview and complete HH9.

MAkAdii zvenyu? zitA rAngu ndinonzi………………………. ndinosHAndA kuBAzi reziMBABwe nAtionAl stAtistics Agency (ziMstAt). tiri kuitA ongororo iri MAererAno nezve ruBAtsiro rwAkAsiyAnA-siyAnA rwunopiwA vAnHu MunHArAundA Muno. zvicHABudA Muon-gororo iyi zvinosHAndiswA neHuruMende MukurongA rAMAngwAnA. tinofArA cHAizvo MukAvA cHikAMu cHeongororo iyi. ongororo iyi inotorA MAMinitsi AnokwAnA guMi neMAsHAnu kusvikA MAkuMi MAviri. zvAMucHAtAurA MuMHinduro dzenyu HAzvizosHAMBAdzwi kuvAnHu.

We Are from the zimbAbWe nAtionAl stAtistics Agency And Are collecting dAtA concerned With economic support to the fAmilies in your AreA. this informAtion is used for plAnning purposes. i Would like to tAlk to someone in this household About this subject. the intervieW Will tAke About 15-20 minutes. All the informAtion We obtAin Will remAin strictly confidentiAl And your AnsWers Will never be shAred With Anyone other thAn our project teAm.

Yes, permission is given Go to HH18 to record the time and then begin the interview.

No, permission is not given End the interview and complete HH9.


After the questionnaire has been completed, fill in the following information:

HH9. Result of the interview:

Completed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

No household member or no competent respondent at home at time of visit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

Entire household absent for extended period of time . . . . . . . . 03

Refused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

Dwelling vacant / Address not a dwelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

Dwelling destroyed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06

Dwelling not found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07

Other (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

HH10. Respondent:

Name:________________________________________________

Line Number: ___ ___

HH11. Total number of household members: ___ ___

HH18.

Record the time. Hour__ __ Minutes__ __

LIST OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

first, pleAse tell me the nAme of eAch person Who usuAlly lives here, stArting With the heAd of the household.

MungAndiudzAwo Here MAzitA evAnHu vAnowAnzogArA pAno MAzuvA ose kusAngAnisirA vAsipo pArizvino? tAngAi nekundiudzA zitA reMunHu AnoonA nezveHurongwA HweMAgAriro evAnHu pAno zuvA nezuvA

List the head of the household in line 01. List all household members (HL2), their relationship to the household head (HL3), and their sex (HL4)

Then ask: Are there Any others Who live here, even if they Are not At home noW?

pAne vAMwezve Here vAnogArA pAno MAzuvA ese, cHero vAsipo pArizvino?

If yes, complete listing for questions HL2–HL4. Then, ask questions starting with HL5 for each person at a time. Use an additional questionnaire if all rows in the List of Household Members have been used.


For children age 0-17 yearsFor household members age

5-24 years

HL1.

Line No.

HL2.

Name

HL3 .

WhAt is the relAtion-ship of (name) to the heAd of house-hold?

ukAMA Hwupi Huri pAkAti pA(zitA) neMukuru weMHuri?

HL4.

is (name) mAle or femAle?

(zitA) MunHuruMe Here kAnA kuti MunHukAdzi?

HL5.

WhAt is (name)’s dAte of birth?

ko (zitA)AkABerekwA riini?

HL6.

hoW old is (name)?

(zitA)AsvitsA MAkore MAngAni okuBerekwA AkAzArA?

HL11.

is (name)’s nAturAl mother Alive?

AMAi vAkABerekA (zitA) vApenyu Here?

HL12 .

does (name)’s nAturAl mother live in this household?

AMAi vAkABerekA (zitA) vAnogArA pAno Here?

HL13 .

Is (name)’s nAturAl fAther Alive?

BABA vAkABerekA (zitA) vApenyu Here?

HL14 .

does (name)’s nAturAl fAther live in this household?

BABA vAkABerekA (zitA) vAnogArA pAno Here?

ED5 .

during the current school yeAr, did (name) Attend school or preschool At Any time?

Mugore rino (zitA) AkAMBopindA cHikoro Here ?

1 Male

2 Female 98 DK 9998 DK

Record in completed years. If age is 95 or above, record ‘95’

1 Yes

2 No HL13

8 DK HL13

If “Yes”, record line no. of mother and go to HL13.

If “No”, record 00.

1 Yes

2 No ED5

8 DK ED5

If “Yes”, record line no. of father and go ED5

If “No”, record 00

1 Yes

2 No Go to the next line

Line Name Relation* m f Month Year Age Y N DK Mother Y N DK Father Yes No

01 0 1 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

02 ___ ___ 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

03 ___ ___ 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

04 ___ ___ 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

05 ___ ___ 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

06 ___ ___ 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

07 ___ ___ 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

08 ___ ___ 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

09 ___ ___ 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

10 ___ ___ 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

11 ___ ___ 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

12 ___ ___ 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

13 ___ ___ 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

14 ___ ___ 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

15 ___ ___ 1 2 __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2 8 ___ ___ 1 2

Tick here if additional questionnaire used

Probe for additional household members.

Probe especially for any infants or small children not listed, and others who may not be members of the family (such as servants, friends) but who usually live in the household.

Insert names of additional members in the household list and complete form accordingly.

* Codes for HL3: Relationship to head of household:

01 Head

02 Spouse / Partner

03 Son / Daughter

04 Son-In-Law / Daughter-In- Law

05 Grandchild

06 Parent

07 Parent-In- Law

08 Brother / Sister

09 Brother-In- Law / Sister-In-Law

10 Uncle / Aunt

11 Niece / Nephew

12 Other relative

13 Adopted / Foster / Stepchild

14 Servant (Live-in)

96 Other (Not related)

98 DK

HH19A.

Record the time when the List of Household Members is finalised. Hour__ __ Minutes__ __


sp0.


noW i Would like to Ask you About vArious externAl economic AssistAnce progrAmmes provided by the government, non-governmentAl or-gAnizAtions, religious, chAritAble, or community-bAsed orgAnizAtions. by externAl economic AssistAnce We meAn support thAt comes from outside fAmily, relAtives, friends, or neighbours.

pArizvino ndinodA kuBvunzA nezve ruBAtsiroA rwAkAsiyAnA siyAnA rwunopiwA neHuruMende, MA ngos, MAsAngAno ecHitendero kAnA MAMwe MAsAngAno AnoBAtsirA vAnHu. ApA tinorevA ruBAtsiro runoBvA kuMwewo tisingAsAngAnisire HAMA, vAvAkidzAni kAnA sHAMwAri.

Ask SP1-SP4 for each programme horizontally, before proceeding with the next programme.

SOCIAL PROTECTION SP

[A] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g] [h]hArmonized sociAl cAsh

trAnsfer (hsct) or

cAsh trAnsfer usuAlly

provided to poor

households, or those

With elderly, disAbled people

or orphAns?

MAri dzinopiwA MHuri

dzeMAcAsH trAnsfer?

monthly mAintenAnce AlloWAnce

under public AssistAnce, except for Worker’s

compensAtion

MAri dzinopiwA MHuri

dzepAMwedzi dzeMAintenAnce

AllowAnces.MAri idzi

HAndzisAngAnise MAri dzinopiwA

vAsHAndi vAkAkuvArA

kuBAsA

AssistAnce for food, such As

school feeding, drought relief,

communAl gArdens, or AgriculturAl

inputs

ruBAtsiro rwecHikAfu

runosAngAnisA kupiHwA kwevAnA cHikAfu

kucHikoro, cHikAfu

cHedrougHt relief,

ruBAtsiro rwAkAnAngAnA

neMAgArden neMBeu.

cAsh or food for Work/productive community

Works

food for work

vouchers for heAlth services such As Amto or mAternAl

vouchers

MAtsAMBA ekunorApwA

pAcHenA kuzvipAtArA

AkAitA se AMto kAnA

AyA AnopiwA MAdziMAi kuti vAnozvArirA MuzvipAtArA

formAlized income

generAtion progrAmme

MAri kAnA zviMwe zvinHu zvekutAngisA

kAnA kuvAndunzA MA projects

pAuper buriAl

kuvigirwA Mufi wenyu

MusHure Mekunge MAtAdzA

kuMuvigA

Any otHer forMAlised

progrAMMes froM externAl sources otHer

tHAn scHool support?

ruMwe ruBAtsiro runoBvA

kuMwewo tisingAtArisire

rwezvecHikoro ?

sp1A. WhAt is the nAme of the orgAnizAtion thAt provides (name of programme)?

i/MA sAngAno Api AnopA ruBAtsiro rwe (zita rechirongwa)?

yes ....... 1

no ........ 2 [b]

dk ........ 8 [b]

yes .......... 1

no ........... 2 [c]

dk ........... 8 [c]

yes ....... 1

no ........ 2 [d]

dk ........ 8 [d]

yes ....... 1

no ........ 2 [e]

dk ........ 8 [e]

yes ....... 1

no ........ 2 [f]

dk ........ 8 [f]

yes ....... 1

no ........ 2 [g]

dk ........ 8 [g]

yes ......1

no .......2 [h]

dk .......8 [h]

yes ...........1

no ............2 [sp5]

dk ............8 [sp5]

sp2. hAs your household or Anyone living in your household ever received AssistAnce through (name of programme)?

pAne MuMwe Here MuMBA Muno AkAMBowAnA ruBAtsiro kuBvA ku (zita rechirongwa)?

Name of Organization___________


dk .............8

Name of Organization____________


dk .............8



dk .............8



dk ............8



dk .............8



dk ............8



dk .............8



dk .............8

sp3. When WAs the lAst time your household received (name of programme)?

MAkApedzisirA riini kuwAnA ruBAtsiro rwe (zita rechirongwa)?

Mos ago__ __

Yrs ago __ __

dk ...........98

Mos ago__ __

Yrs ago __ __

dk ...........98

Mos ago__ __

Yrs ago __ __

dk ...........98

Mos ago__ __

Yrs ago __ __

dk .......... 98

Mos ago__ __

Yrs ago __ __

dk ...........98

Mos ago__ __

Yrs ago __ __

dk ...........98

Mos ago__ __

Yrs ago __ __

dk .......... 98

Mos ago__ __

Yrs ago __ __

dk ...........98


[A] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g] [h]

sp3A. is your household still eligible to receive (name of programme)?

iMucHiri nekodzero yekurAMBA MucHiwAnA MAri dze (zita rechirongwa)?

yes ...........1

no ............2

___________(specify)

dk ............8

yes ...........1

no ............2

___________(specify)

dk ............8

sp4. Go back to SP1 [B] for next programme.

Go back to SP1 [C] for next programme.

Go back to SP1 [D] for next programme.

Go back to SP1 [E] for next programme.

Go back to SP1 [F] for next programme.

Go back to SP1 [G] for next programme.

Go back to SP1 [H] for next programme.

Go to SP5

SP5. Check the responses to ED5: any member 5-24 years currently attending school or preschool

" ED5=1 Continue with SP6

" Else Go to HH19B

noW i Would like to Ask you About school support provided by the government, non-governmentAl orgAnizAtions, religious, chAritAble, or community-bAsed orgAnizAtions. pleAse exclude support received by fAmily, friends, or neighbours.

pArizvino ndinodA kuBvunzA nezve ruBAtsiro rwAkAnAngAnA nezvedzidzo rwunopiwA neHuruMende, MA ngos, MAsAngAno ecHitendero nenAMwe MAsAngAno AnoBAtsirA vAnHu. ruBetsero urwu HArusAngAnise ruBetsero kuBvA kuneHAMA kAnA sHAMwAri nevAMwe vAnHu zvAvo.

sp6. hAs Anyone Age 5-24 yeArs living in your household benefited from Any school fee support or AssistAnce progrAmme for the current school yeAr through the beAm or Another progrAmme?

pAne uMwe weMuMBA Muno Ane MAkore MAsHAnu kusvikirA MAkore MAkuMi MAviri neMAnA AkAMBowAnA ruBAtsiro rwefundo kuBvA kuBeAM kAnA cHiMwe cHirongwA Mugore rino Here?

Yes…………………………1

No………………………… .2

DK………………………… .8

sp7. hAs Anyone Age 5-24 yeArs living in your household received Any mAteriAl support for the current school yeAr in the form of shoes, exercise books/notebooks, bicycles or school uniforms?

pAne uMwe weMuMBA Muno Ane MAkore MAsHAnu kusvikirA MAkore MAkuMi MAviri neMAnA AkAMBowAnA ruBAtsiro rwAkAnAngAnA nefundo rwAkAitA sekutengerwA BHutsu, MABHuku ekunyorerA, BHAsikoro kAnA uniforM Mugore rino Here?

Yes…………………………1

No………………………… .2

DK………………………… .8

HH19B.


HH19B. Thank the respondent for his/her cooperation and go back to HH9 on cover page to fill the result of the interview.


APPENDIX C List of Persons and Organizations Contacted

NAME SURNAME TITLE/ROLE IN PILOT

MOBILE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS

Taizivei Mungate Survey Director 0712 221 811 tmungate@zimstat .co .zw

Lovemore Sungano

Ziswa Coordinator 0772 944 438 lziswa@zimstat .co .zw

Evelyn Marima Coordinator 0712 752 221 emarima@zimstat .co .zw eve76hungwe@gmail .com

Lloyd T . Magorimbo

Mahere Programmer 0772 948 710 lmahere@zimstat .co .zw

Lovemore Gore

Chinosengwa Provincial Operations 0772 291 780 lchinosengwa@zimstat .co .zw lgchinosengwa@gmail .com

Prudence T . Deve Provincial Supervisor 0772 652 981 pdeve@zimstat .co .zw

Evelyn Basvi Data Entry Operator 0734 113 359 Dataentry@zimstat .co .zw

Brenda Mukonzi Data Entry Operator 0773 171 981 Dataentry@zimstat .co .zw

Christina Chiware Social Protection Specialist

0773 004 019 christina .chiware@gmail .com

Zuze Mazhiri Interviewer 0772 864 398

Sekai Manhera Interviewer 0772 672 902 smanhera@gmail .com

Nhamo Jaravaza Interviewer 0716 455 411 nvjaravaza68@gmail .com

Eunice Manema-Bungu Interviewer 0771 860 793

Kudzai Mahala Interviewer 0772 112 502 kudziemahala@gmail .com

Stanely Wunganai Interviewer 0772 932 609 stanwung@yahoo .co .uk

Portia Mudimu Interviewer 0782 121 124

Tawanda Sithole Driver 0775 605 449

Danny Tafuririka Driver 0715 138 950

Louis Kandiye Consultant 0775 621 324 lkandiye@unicef .org

Ben Tambaoga Mashonaland East Provincial Supervisor

0773 544 706 bbtambaoga@gmail .com

Tadzimirwa Taongai Mashonaland Central Provincial Supervisor

0712 873 631 ttaongai@gmail .com

Ezroni Chizombe Mashonaland East Team Leader

0712 372 367

ZIMBABWE NATIONAL STATISTICS AGENCY (ZIMSTAT)




Christina Chiware Social Protection Specialist

0773004019 christina .chiware@gmail .com

Victor Ngulube MIS Specialist 0712546242 victor@sdf .org .zw

Zororo Gandal Acting Chief Social Services Officer

0774762011

ZIMBABWE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SERVICE, LABOUR AND SOCIAL WELFARE (MPSLSW), CNR 4TH STREET AND CENTRAL AVENUE, HARARE, ZIMBABWE



Samson Muradzikwa Chief, Social policy smuradzikwa@unicef .org

Noriko Izumi Chief, Child Protec-tion

nizumi@unicef .org

Vikas Singh Chief, Planning, Moni-toring and Evaluation

vsingh@unicef .org

Leon Muwoni Child Protection Specialist

lmuwoni@unicef .org

Lloyd Muchemna Child protection Specialist

lmuchemna@unicef .org

Debra Maleni Socio-economic analyst

dmaleni@unicef .org

Rumbidzai Tizura rtizura@unicef .org

UNICEF ZIMBABWE COUNTRY OFFICE; 6 FAIRBRIDGE AVENUE, BELGRAVIA, HARARE, ZIMBABWE

collecting data to measure social protection programme

Documents