|Title||Long-run Effects of Non-Food Item Vouchers in a Humanitarian Context: The Case of the Rapid Response to Movements of Population Program in Congo|
|C1 Background and Explanation of Rationale||
In 2017 and 2018, we conducted a field experiment in 31 villages in Eastern Congo, to learn about the impact of Non-Food Item (NFI) vouchers on 1) physical health, 2) mental health, 3) social cohesion, and 4) resilience. Data was originally collected around six weeks after the distribution of the vouchers. The pre-analysis plan was registered at EGAP (http://egap.org/registration/2832). More information about the intervention, how the original outcomes are measured, and study context can be found in that document.
Here, we outline a plan to revisit the same villages about one year after the distribution of vouchers to understand 1) the long-run effects of the NFI vouchers on the same four outcomes, 2) the effects of NFI vouchers on women’s empowerment, and 3) the effects of the NFI vouchers on (onward or return) migration.
|C2 What are the hypotheses to be tested?||
We aim to answer the following questions:
|C3 How will these hypotheses be tested? *||
The original data collection effort consisted of two rounds of surveys. We interviewed respondents from about 1,500 households (in almost 1,000 dwellings) before the intervention and around six weeks after the intervention. As part of this data collection exercise, we will revisit the same villages, and aim to re-interview the same people that were interviewed as part of the baseline.
The survey that will be conducted with these individuals is almost identical to the second survey wave. We made some changes to the initial questions required to identify households, and we added two sets of questions about women’s empowerment and migration (see below).
We aim to collect the data in the fall of 2018 and first quarter of 2019. We will first undertake the data collection in five villages. We may not collect data in the subsequent villages if any one of the following holds: 1) It is not safe to visit the locations (for security reasons, Ebola, etc.), or 2) if in the first villages less than 25% of baseline respondents can be re-interviewed.
|C4 Country||The Democratic Republic of Congo|
|C5 Scale (# of Units)||1,500 households in 1,000 dwellings|
|C6 Was a power analysis conducted prior to data collection?||Yes|
|C7 Has this research received Insitutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee approval?||not provided by authors|
|C8 IRB Number||The original IRB protocols have been amended and approved (New York University #064-2017).|
|C9 Date of IRB Approval||26 August 2018|
|C10 Will the intervention be implemented by the researcher or a third party?||Researchers|
|C11 Did any of the research team receive remuneration from the implementing agency for taking part in this research?||No|
|C12 If relevant, is there an advance agreement with the implementation group that all results can be published?||Yes|
|C13 JEL Classification(s)||I15, I38, D74, H84|