community and household-level income & asset status baseline

APPENDIX 2: DETAILS OF WEALTH RANKING RESULTS AND PROCEDURES
During the community survey group interview, the respondents were requested to
identify three main quantitative or qualitative criteria for classifying a household as poor or
better off. Subsequently, in a separate meeting, three key informants from each village were
asked to classify all households in the village as either poor or better off relative to the village
as a whole, based on the three criteria identified in the group interview. Table A1 reports the
criteria identification results for the 15 surveyed villages.
The enumerators then compared the three scoring sheets and identified the households
that consistently fell in the same wealth group. For the households that were placed in
different groups by the key informants, the key informants and enumerators discussed the
characteristics (helped by the scored criteria) of these households and reached a consensus as
to whether they should be classified as poor or better off. The total number of households in
the village that fell into each wealth group should was noted, as it is used to determine how
many households should be sampled from each wealth group. The number of households to
be sampled in each wealth group in each village was weighted against the observed number
of households in the wealth group. An example is given in Table A2.1. The households to be
interviewed from each wealth group were randomly selected using a random numbers table.
Table A2.1 - Estimation of Sample Size for Kagyeyo Village
Total number of households in village sample = 20
Total number of households in village = 106
Total number of households in village classified as “poor = 79 (74.5%)
Total number of households in village classified as “better off” = 27 (25.5%)
Number of “poor” households in village sample: 0.5604*20 = 15
Number of “better off” households in village sample: 0.4395*20 = 5
40