Kenya OVC-CT Programme Operational and Impact Evaluation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 Characteristics of programme recipientsThis section describes the basic characteristics of OVCs and their households, based on thefindings from the household survey. It looks at the frequency of OVC households and their basicliving conditions. It also describes caring arrangements and the characteristics of the caregivers.2.1 Characteristics of OVC householdsTo develop the sample frame for the study population a household listing was undertaken in arandomly selected sample of enumeration areas (EAs) in every location covered by the evaluation(see Annex D for details of the sampling methodology). A short listings form was completed forevery household in the EA which included questions on the number of children in the household,the number of orphans and the number of sick adults. Table 2.1 presents estimates of theproportion of households in control locations containing children, orphans and sick adults bydistrict.Although it was not possible to precisely classify listed households as OVC or non-OVC becauseof the limited information collected on the listing form, the proportion of households containingeither at least one orphan or at least one child and at least one sick adult should give a reasonablyclose approximation to the proportion of households containing OVCs. 11 The estimates in the tablebelow suggest that there are proportionately fewer OVC households in Nairobi than in the otherdistricts, while Garissa and Suba have particularly high proportions of households with OVCs.Table 2.1 Proportion of households in evaluation locations containing children,orphans and sick adults – by district (%)NairobiHoma BayMIgoriKisumuSubaKwaleGarissaAllevaluationlocationsContain children48 68 81 78 78 79 94 58Contain at least one orphan6 23 31 31 35 15 30 14Contain at least one child and at least onechronically sick adult 3 9 11 12 8 9 17 7Contain at least one orphan or at least one childand one sick adult (potential OVC) 7 26 35 35 38 21 39 16N = number of households (unweighted)6,752 2,500 2,769 3,014 1,775 1,748 1,923 20,481Source: OPM OVC-CT household listings data. Notes: Within each evaluation location a random sample of EAs wereselected. In each EA a full census of households was conducted. The EAs were randomly selected with probabilityproportional to population size. The EA sampling probabilities were used to construct appropriate sampling weights. Theestimates are therefore representative of all households in evaluation locations.11 The household listings form was designed before the programme had finalised the precise definition usedto classify OVCs. See Annex C for details of how OVC households were classified using the householdlistings data and how this relates to the overall sampling methodology.10
OVC households make up the study population of the quantitative survey. Other estimatespresented in this section relate to the characteristics of OVC households and their members only;as they do elsewhere in the report, unless indicated otherwise.Table 2.2 below presents the characteristics that are related to the status as ‘OVC’ households.This and many subsequent tables are disaggregated by type of location (treatment or control) andwithin that by household treatment status – either as recipient or non-recipient households inprogramme areas, or control or non-control households in the control areas. Recipients are alsodivided between those in areas where the programme imposes conditions and those where it doesnot. This enables a comparison of they key groups in the study.It can be seen that almost all OVC households contain orphans. A significant fraction ofhouseholds also have a chronically ill care-giver or child. Child-headed households are very rareand none were identified in the baseline survey.Not all the children living in OVC households are themselves OVCs – for example, a householdmight have fostered one or more children but also have children of their own. The survey foundthat, overall, around 75% of children in OVC households are themselves OVCs. This is slightlyhigher in programme recipients, at 81% - the programme has tended to select households with ahigher fraction of OVCs in them. This is not the case in the controls.Table 2.2Characteristics of OVC households on OVC criteriaTreatment locationsControl locationsRecipient –ConditionsRecipient – NoconditionsMean number of children 3.5 3.2 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.2 3.4Contain orphan(s) (%) 98 97 97 97 97 95 93 94 96mean number of orphans contained 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.4Contain child household head (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Contain chronically ill child (%) 8 12 10 9 9 10 10 10 9Contain chronically ill caregiver(s) (%) 16 19 18 8 10 17 17 17 13Contain OVC(s) (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100mean number of OVCs contained 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.5N = number of OVC households (unweighted) 683 824 1,507 230 1,737 717 216 933 2,670Source: OPM OVC-CT evaluation baseline data (2007).Recipient –OverallNon-recipientOverallControlNon-controlOverallOverallTable 2.3 below presents a range of socioeconomic characteristics of the OVC households. Itincludes household consumption and poverty, housing quality and infrastructure, and theownership of assets. 1212 See Annex C for details of how consumption expenditure aggregates have been constructed and used toassess the relative economic status of OVC households.11
Page 1 and 2: KENYA OVC-CT PROGRAMME OPERATIONAL
Page 3 and 4: AcknowledgementsThe authors would l
Page 5 and 6: in the evaluation locations and 22%
Page 7 and 8: It seems likely that some form of p
Page 9 and 10: C.4 Comparison with the internation
Page 11 and 12: Table C.4 Real monthly consumption
Page 13 and 14: 1 Introduction1.1 The OVC cash tran
Page 15 and 16: The programme was developed under a
Page 17 and 18: The baseline survey will be followe
Page 19 and 20: least until the follow-up survey. A
Page 21: Control household - a control house
Page 25 and 26: Treatment locationsControl location
Page 27 and 28: familial relationships are, overall
Page 29 and 30: 3 Targeting effectiveness - are cas
Page 31 and 32: Table 3.1Comparison between study a
Page 33 and 34: not so different; a significant par
Page 35 and 36: Bcov erage = ×100A + BCoverage and
Page 37 and 38: Table 3.3Distribution of poorest OV
Page 39 and 40: The corollary of this is that a sig
Page 41 and 42: 3.5.1 Design issues - if applied co
Page 43 and 44: Table 3.9 Proportion of OVC househo
Page 45 and 46: the programme enrolment process, wh
Page 47 and 48: Table 4.1Health and nutrition indic
Page 49 and 50: As for the child health indicators,
Page 51 and 52: suggest that there are some differe
Page 53 and 54: Table 4.7Supply of education servic
Page 55: In general, the recipient and contr
Page 58 and 59: Kenya OVC-CT Programme Operational
Page 72 and 73:
Kenya OVC-CT Programme Operational
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102:
show all

Kenya OVC-CT Programme Operational and Impact Evaluation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?