# **B. Data**

One challenge in collecting data for the evaluation has been that PW beneficiaries within communities— people who would be working on specific CfW subprojects—were not pre‐identified. Instead, they were selected on the first day of the subproject, largely on a first‐come, first‐served basis, subject to meeting the eligibility criteria. This precluded the possibility of simultaneous baseline data collection in the control and treatment households.

Data were collected in three phases: (1) data collection for beneficiary tracking, (2) data collection through unannounced site visits at CfW projects in the treatment communities, and (3) an endline household survey. All data collection was carried out by Sierra Leone’s national statistical agency, Statistics Sierra Leone. The administrative data that were used in the community (subproject) randomization process were collected and maintained by NaCSA for operational and monitoring purposes.

To enable the documentation and follow‐up on treatment and control households, beneficiary tracker surveys were administered on the first day of implementation for CfW treatment (April 2012) and control (July 2012) subprojects. These trackers were the basis on which treatment and control households were identified and interviewed for the endline survey (July–August 2012). The tracker surveys collected basic demographic information from beneficiaries, contact details so they could be tracked during subsequent survey rounds, and information on beneficiary perceptions of the program and its processes prior to beginning work at the sites. The surveys were administered at 276 sites among a total of 17,670 potential beneficiaries.

Unannounced observational visits were fielded midway through the physical implementation of the subprojects at 141 of the 143 treatment sites (May–June 2012).<sup>14</sup> This survey was conducted in two parts that were designed to collect information on overall program implementation and specific processes, as well as the program knowledge and satisfaction among beneficiaries. Part 1 consisted of observations (including a worker roll call, checks of attendance, and other records) and an interview with a contractor representative on site; part 2 consisted of an interview of one man and one woman randomly selected among the beneficiaries. A total of 279 beneficiaries—3 percent of the 8,883 people working on the 141 subprojects—were interviewed, around half of whom were women.

The endline household survey was administered concurrently among treatment and control households: at the end of implementation for the treatment group and immediately before implementation for the control group (July–August 2012). Thus, although the households in the control subprojects had already been identified for enrollment in the program, they had not yet started working. The endline survey was administered to an average of 20 beneficiary households in each of the 275 subprojects, for a total of 5,506 beneficiary households.<sup>15</sup> The survey covered a range of topics, but focused on measuring the program effects along the following dimensions: (1) labor market outcomes and economic activity; (2) household assets, consumption, and savings; and (3) the utilization of education and health services.

> nonoutliers. For the Winzorization, values above the 99th percentile of the distribution and values below the 1st percentile were replaced with the 99th percentile and with the 1st percentile of the distribution, respectively. Food expenditure and savings were winsorized at the 3rd percentile, considering the volume of outliers.

> 14 Two treatment sites were inactive at the time of the unannounced visits.

> 15 One subproject in the Western Area was canceled during the implementation of the impact evaluation (IE).

7