I.

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Purpose: to describe/to provide a profile for the sample using variables as age, education, occupation, household size and many others

Table 1. Percent distribution of households by household size by barangays, Household Survey for Community Impact Monitoring and Evaluation Baseline Study, Bohol, 2011
Household Size 1-2 members 3-4 members 5-6 members 7 members or more Number of Cases Total Percent Average HH size Median Std. Deviation Bohol Total of 7 provinces Kagawasan Monte Video Treatment Control 18.0 20.0 15.4 18.9 32.0 42.0 35.7 36.0 28.0 26.0 27.4 28.6 22.0 12.0 21.4 16.6 50 50 350 350 100. 100 100 100 4.8 4.2 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.2

Figure 1. Percent distribution of households by

household size by barangays, Household Survey for Community Impact Monitoring and Evaluation Baseline Study, Bohol, 2011
Percent Distribution of Households by Household Size
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1-2 members 3-4 members 5-6 members 7 members or more Kagawasan Monte Video

Tips in examining and analyzing the table what and where to look? 1. Look at the title. Is it complete? Is it clearly giving the information of the content of the table? Is it meeting the purpose of describing or profiling the sample? Note: what do we really mean when we say profiling or describing the sample? 2. Look at the column heading. Do you have correct label for each column? Are the labels clear? Tip: the column labels must be clear but concise/short 3. Look at the row labels. Is it clear? Are they correctly labeled? Are the categories complete (naa tanan nga walay households nga dili makasulod)? Are the labels mutually exclusive?

4. Look at your total cases column by column. Is it correct? Is it complete? 5. Look at your total percent column by column. Is the total 100%? 6. Look at the content of the table:

a. examine the content column by column b. look at similarities and commonalities (For example, in Kagawasan, there are 32% and 28% of households that have 3 to 4 and 5 to 6 members. You can add categories with the same distribution per column that is 60% or majority of households in Kagawasan have 3 to 6 members.) c. What is the highest entry or distribution per column (example: 32% of households in Kagawasan have 3 to 4 members and 42% of households in Monte Video have three to four members) or you add (sum up) several rows per column (example 82% of households in Kagawasan has more than 2 members and 80% of households in Monte Video has more than 2 members) Tip: The highest entry could be your central point or mode or your average or mean is found. c. What is the lowest entry per column? (example: In Kagawasan the lowest entry is in category one to

two household members with 18% of households belonging to this category. In Monte Video, the lowest entry is found in category 7 members or higher with 12% of households reporting this category.) d. look at irregularities, aberration, surprising results, noteworthy entries e. Look at the average per column. What does it say? How big or how small is it? Say something about the size or magnitude? (example: the average household size of Kagawasan is 4.8 members and Monte Video is 4.2 members. 7. You may now want to compare the profile of the two barangays. This is optional in profiling.

II. Impact Indicators

Purpose: 1. to show presence and absence of project impacts 2. to show difference of impact in before and after project implementation 3. to show difference of impact in the with and without project barangay 4. to show that these differences are statistically significant or generalizable to the barangays where the sample were drawn

Table 2. Percentage distribution of households by Annual Income in Kagawasan and Monte Video by year (2009, the before data) and (2011, the after data), CIME baseline study, Bohol, 2011
Income from all sources in pesos
less than 10,000 pesos 10,000 to 19,999 pesos 20,000 to 29,999 pesos 30,000 to 49,999 pesos 50,000 to 79,999 pesos 80,000 to 99,999 pesos 100,000 to 149,999 pesos 150,000 to 199,999 pesos 200,000 pesos and up Total Number of cases Total percent

Kagawasan 2011 2009

8.0% 14.0% 18.0% 10.0% 24.0% 4.0% 14.0% 2.0% 6.0% 50 100.0% 10.0% 24.0% 16.0% 12.0% 16.0% 6.0% 14.0% 2.0% 0.0% 50 100.0%

Monte Video 2011 2009

2.0% 20.0% 12.0% 26.0% 26.0% 4.0% 4.0% 6.0% .0% 50 100.0% 6.0% 18.0% 24.0% 26.0% 16.0% 2.0% 6.0% 2.0% 0.0% 50 100.0%

Percent Distribution of Households by Annual Income

30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% Monte Video 2009 5.00% 0.00%

Kagawasan 2011 Kagawasan 2009 Monte Video 2011

Figure 2. Percentage distribution of households by Annual Income in Kagawasan and Monte Video by year(2009, the before data) and (2011, the after data), CIME baseline study, Bohol, 2011

Figure 2a. Percentage distribution of households by Annual Income in Kagawasan by year (2009, the before data) and (2011, the after data), CIME baseline study, Bohol, 2011
Percent Distribution of Household by Annual Income, Kagawasan, San Miguel, Bohol
30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2011 2009

Figure 2b. Percentage distribution of households by Annual Income in Monte Video by year (2009, the before data) and (2011, the after data), CIME baseline study, Bohol, 2011
Percent Distribution of Households by Annual Income, Monte Video, Carmen, Bohol
30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2011 2009

Percentage distribution of households by annual income, Kagawasan and Monte Video, 2011
30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00%

kagawasan 2011 monte video

Table 3. Average Annual Income in Pesos of Households from all sources in Kagawasan and in Monte Video by the before (2009) and after (2011), CIME evaluation baseline study, Bohol 2011

Impact Indicators

2011

2009

Increase from 2009

Test of difference between 2009 and 2011 (Student t values)

Treatment Barangay Income from all sources Income from On-farm sources Income from Off-farm sources Income from Non-farm sources Income from Business/trade Control Barangay Income from all sources Income from On-farm sources Income from Off-farm sources Income from Non-farm sources Income from Business/trade Test of difference between treatment and control (student t or F values) Student t-values for income from all sources between treatment and control Student t-values for income from on-farm sources between treatment and control Student t-values for income from off-farm sources between treatment and control Student t-values for income from non-farm sources between treatment and control Student t-values for income from business sources between treatment and control

66,424.52 14,527.64 23,168.88 28,368.00 360.00 51,935.60 22,939.20 11,523.60 16,776.80 696.00

49,625.94 7,736.82 22,012.32 19,636.80 240.00 41,258.08 18,470.88 8,468.40 13,622.80 696.00

33.85% 87.77% 5.25% 44.46% 50.00% 25.88% 24.19% 36.08% 23.15% 0.0%

t=1.36

t=1.06

t=-1.61

t=-4.03***

t=2.08*

t=2.51**

t= 1.44

t=1.01

t= -0.45

t= -0.62

***very highly significant at = 0.001 or p<0.001; **Highly significant at = 0.01 or p< 0.01; significant at = 0.05 or p<0.05

Figure 3. Average annual income of households in pesos from all sources in Kagawasan, Bohol, 2011

Average Annual Income of Households from all Sources, Kagawasan 2011

360 14,527.64 28,368.00

Income from On-farm sources Income from Off-farm sources Income from Non-farm sources Income from Business/trade

23,168.88

Average annual income of households in pesos from all sources in Monte Video, Bohol, 2011

Figure 4.

Average Annual Income of Households from all Sources, Monte Video, 2011

696 Income from On-farm sources 22,939.20 Income from Off-farm sources Income from Non-farm sources Income from Business/trade 11,523.60

16,776.80

III. Attribution Analysis Standardized and unstandardized regression coefficients estimated using dummy regression techniques Purpose: 1. To show the single and unique effect of the project to the presence of improved economic growth 2. To show the single and unique effect of the project to the presence of improved

economic growth when other competing factors are partialled out or controlled 3. To show the combined effects of all factors in the model to improved economic growth 4. To show that these effects are statistically significant or generalizable to the barangays where the sample were drawn

Sample Coding of presence and absence of independent variables for dummy regression analysis
Presence Presence Presence of of PRMF of improved educated income hh head Presence of educated woman in the household 0 0 0 1 0 0 Presence Presence Presence of Presence of of farm of economically economically income nonfarm active male active income in the woman in household the household 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 1 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 0 0 1 0 0

presenceprmf * stratum Crosstabulation

stratum Treatment presenceprmf .00 Count % within stratum Count % within stratum Count % within stratum 0 .0% 50 100.0% 50 100.0% Control 50 100.0% 0 .0% 50 100.0% Total 50 50.0% 50 50.0% 100 100.0%

1.00

Total

presenceeducatedhhh * stratum Crosstabulation stratum presenceeducat edhhh .00 1.00 Total Count % within stratum Count % within stratum Count % within stratum Treatment 26 52.0% 24 48.0% 50 100.0% Control 41 82.0% 9 18.0% 50 100.0% Total 67 67.0% 33 33.0% 100 100.0%

presenceeducatedwoman * stratum Crosstabulation stratum presenceedu catedwoman .00 Count % within stratum Count % within stratum Count % within stratum Treatment 25 50.0% 25 50.0% 50 100.0% Control 32 64.0% 18 36.0% 50 100.0% Total 57 57.0% 43 43.0% 100 100.0%

1.00

Total

presenceeconomicallyactivehhh * stratum Crosstabulation stratum Treatment presenceecon omicallyactive hhh .00 Count % within stratum Count % within stratum 2 4.0% 48 96.0% Control 6 12.0% 44 88.0% Total 8 8.0% 92 92.0%

1.00

Total

Count % within stratum

50 100.0%

50 100.0%

100 100.0%

presenceeconomicallyactivewoman * stratum Crosstabulation stratum presenceecono micallyactivew oman .00 Count % within stratum Count % within stratum Count % within stratum Treatment 45 90.0% 5 10.0% 50 100.0% Control 37 74.0% 13 26.0% 50 100.0% Total 82 82.0% 18 18.0% 100 100.0%

1.00

Total

presencefarmincome * stratum Crosstabulation stratum presencefarmin come .00 1.00 Total Count % within stratum Count % within stratum Count % within stratum Treatment 14 28.0% 36 72.0% 50 100.0% Control 0 .0% 50 100.0% 50 100.0% Total 14 14.0% 86 86.0% 100 100.0%

presencewageearner * stratum Crosstabulation stratum Treatment presencewagee arner .00 1.00 Total Count % within stratum Count % within stratum Count 30 60.0% 20 40.0% 50 Control 31 62.0% 19 38.0% 50 Total 61 61.0% 39 39.0% 100

% within stratum

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

presenceimprovedincome * stratum Crosstabulation stratum Treatment presenceimpr ovedincome .00 Count % within stratum Count % within stratum Count % within stratum 14 28.0% 36 72.0% 50 100.0% Control 12 24.0% 38 76.0% 50 100.0% Total 26 26.0% 74 74.0% 100 100.0%

1.00

Total

Table 6. Unstandardized and Standardized coefficients of presence of improved income by presence of PRMF, Presence of educated household head, presence of educated woman, presence of farm, presence of salaries and wage earner in the household, presence of economically active male member, presence of economically active woman in the household, CIME Baseline study, Bohol, 2011

Coefficients(a)
Model Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients Std. B Error Beta .184 .211 -.008 .098 -.010 -.201 .105 -.215 t Sig.

(Constant) Presence of prmf Presence educated hhh (high school or higher) Presence educated woman (high school or higher) Presence economically active hhh Presence economically ctive woman Presence of farm income Presence of wage/earner

.872 -.085 -1.910

.385 .932 .059

.105

.093

.118

1.132

.260

.434

.158

.268

2.744

.007**

-.151

.114

-.132

-1.318

.191

.172

.138

.136

1.248

.215

.159

.090

.176

1.757

.082

a Dependent Variable: presence improved income; **Significant at = 0.01 or p<0.01 R Square = 15.2%, significant at = 0.05