DRG Learning, Evaluation and Research Activity:
FINAL EVALUATION OF 
USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL 
PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM
February 2019
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was 
prepared by NORC at the University of Chicago. Author views expressed in this publication do not necessarily 
reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | i 
FINAL EVALUATION OF 
USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL 
PROCESSES AND REFORMS PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT 
(February 2019)
Prepared under Contract No.: GS-10F-0033M/AID-OAA-M-13-00013 
Submitted to:
USAID
Submitted by:
Cesi Cruz (Principal Investigator)
Ron Wendt (Evaluation Specialist)
Contractor:
NORC at the University of Chicago
Attention: Renee Hendley
Bethesda, MD 20814
Tel: 301-634-9489: Email: Hendley-Renee@norc.org
DISCLAIMER 
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the 
United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms ...........................................................................................................................................................v
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................1
Evaluation Purpose & Evaluation Questions...............................................................................................5
Evaluation Purpose.......................................................................................................................................5
Evaluation Questions...................................................................................................................................6
Project Background..........................................................................................................................................7
Barriers to Women’s Political Participation in Cambodia ..................................................................9
Cambodia’s Political Climate......................................................................................................................9
Evaluation Methods & Limitations.............................................................................................................. 11
Randomization and treatment allocation ............................................................................................. 12
Community-based SMS Intervention .................................................................................................... 13
Data Collection.......................................................................................................................................... 14
Data Analysis.............................................................................................................................................. 15
Limitations................................................................................................................................................... 16
Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations............................................................................................ 17
Findings ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
Household survey results........................................................................................................................ 23
Conclusions................................................................................................................................................. 26
Annexes ........................................................................................................................................................... 28
Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work .............................................................................................. 28
Annex II: NORC Report on Field Work (April 2017)...................................................................... 32
Annex III: Data Collection Instruments................................................................................................ 40
Annex IV: Works Cited .........................................................................................................................238
Annex V: Regression Tables..................................................................................................................240
Annex VI: Timeline of Political Events................................................................................................246
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | iii
TABLE OF FIGURES 
Figure 1: Sequence of Technical Events for Community-Based SMS Nominations........................ 13
Figure 2: Gender Breakdown of Candidates by Party........................................................................... 18
Figure 3: Treatment and Number of Female Candidates..................................................................... 19
Figure 4: Treatment and Share of Female Candidates.......................................................................... 19
Figure 5: SMS Treatment and Number of Female Candidates............................................................ 20
Figure 6: SMS + MOC Treatment and Number of Female Candidates............................................ 21
Figure 7: SMS Treatment and Share of Female Candidates................................................................. 22
Figure 8: SMS + MOC Treatment and Share of Female Candidates.................................................. 22
Figure 9: SMS Treatment and Political Engagement............................................................................... 24
Figure 10: SMS Treatment and Community Engagement ..................................................................... 25
Figure 11: SMS Treatment and Top Social Issues................................................................................... 26
Figure 12: Share of Women in National Legislatures in Cambodia, the East Asia and Pacific 
Region, and OECD Countries.................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 13: Political Events in Cambodia March 2017 – July 2018 .....................................................246
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | iv
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Treatment and Control Activities by Group........................................................................... 12
Table 2: Nominations per Nominator...................................................................................................... 33
Table 3: Nominations per Nominator by Gender................................................................................. 33
Table 4: Nominations per Nominator by Age ........................................................................................ 34
Table 5: Nominees by Age .......................................................................................................................... 35
Table 6: Number of Parties Nominees Agreed to Share Details With............................................. 35
Table 7: Number of Parties Nominees Agreed to Share Details With by Age............................... 36
Table 8: Parties Nominees Chose to Share Details With.................................................................... 36
Table 9: Parties Nominees Chose to Share Details With, Given Nominee Did Not 
Choose CPP.................................................................................................................................................... 37
Table 10: Party Chosen by Nominees Who Selected Only One Party ............................................ 37
Table 11: Party Chosen by Nominees Who Selected Multiple Parties............................................. 38
Table 12: Nominees Who Selected CPP by Age.................................................................................... 38
Table 13: Nominees Who Selected CNRP by Age................................................................................ 38
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | v 
ACRONYMS 
CNRP Cambodian National Rescue Party
CPP Cambodian People's Party
CPPR Cambodia Political Processes and Reforms Program
CSO Civil Society Organization
FUNCINPEC National United Front for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful and Cooperative Cambodia
FY Fiscal Year
LDP League for Democracy Party
NDI National Democratic Institute
MOC My Own Commune program
SMS Short Message Service (text messaging using standard communication protocols)
SOW Statement of Work 
TNS Kantar TNS Cambodia
USAID United States Agency for International Development
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a randomized control trial to evaluate new community￾based interventions for women’s political engagement in Cambodia, which dovetails with 
USAID-funded efforts to work with the parties to increase women's representation in politics.
The intervention focuses on treating entire communes: individuals are asked to nominate 
women in their community to run for office, and these women are subsequently notified and 
encouraged to put themselves forward for the party lists for commune council. A second 
treatment arm combines these nominations with facilitated workshops to explore synergies 
between different types of community-based interventions.
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS
This evaluation focuses on two main questions corresponding to two potential barriers that can 
hinder women from putting themselves forward as candidates: 1) extrinsic, where women are 
not actively encouraged to run for office; and 2) intrinsic, where women lack political efficacy1
 
or interest in running for office. The first explores ways to lower community barriers to entry 
for female candidates in local office, while the second explores ways to improve the civic 
engagement of women.
The evaluation questions for this study are as follows:
Lowering barriers to entry for female candidates in local office
• Did the intervention increase the number (and share) of women running for commune
council?
• Are there differences in these figures among parties?
Improving civic engagement of women
• Did the intervention improve the political efficacy of women?
○ Improved political knowledge
○ Improved awareness of policy issues
• Did the intervention reduce gaps in political participation and access for women?
○ Participation in community activities
○ Voting and participation in political activities
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Addressing the political participation of women is important because the gender imbalance 
among Cambodian elected representatives is especially acute at the local level: elections results 
from 2007 indicate that less than 15% of members of commune council are female. While the 
1 Used here in the broadest sense – whether citizens believe that they have a say in government and what is their 
sense of confidence in understanding and influence government affairs.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 2 
number of women candidates increased in 2012 to 25.4%, only 18% actually won office (NEC 
2012). In addition to empowering groups traditionally excluded from politics, encouraging 
women to run for office has the added benefit of improving electoral competition. For the 
women involved, these interventions also have the potential to contribute to a greater sense of 
political efficacy and continued involvement in politics.
Further, while there have been a number of information campaigns targeted at educating and 
empowering women for politics, there are no similar initiatives aimed at improving the 
candidate selection process. For political reforms to succeed, it is important not only to 
educate women about responsible voting, but also to provide them with viable choices on the 
ballot.
EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 
Consistent with the evaluation questions outlined above, the first part of the treatment used a 
community-based treatment to address the external factors motivating candidacy. Entire 
communities were treated with a community-based nomination intervention. Individuals were 
asked to nominate a woman that they know to run for office by texting the person’s name and 
number into an SMS-based system, which aggregated all of the nominations and created a list of 
potential nominees for further contact. Those women nominated were subsequently 
encouraged to seek office.
In each interaction, an enumerator administered a short information treatment about the 
importance of encouraging women to run for office. Then respondents were asked to provide 
nominations that meet the following criteria: (i) women that they think would be good 
candidates for commune council; and (ii) women that they know personally (i.e. the nominee’s 
cell phone number is an existing contact in the respondent’s phone). They submitted these 
nominations via our SMS text system, which aggregated the nominations and counted the 
number of referrals and nominations for each individual. 
The second phase of this work then addressed the concern that women may be choosing not 
to run because of a perceived lack of political knowledge or experience. Using the list 
generated from our SMS text system, the team then contacted the individual nominees and 
informed them that members of their community have nominated them to run for commune 
council. Individuals nominated were provided with information on the candidacy process as well 
as the role of political parties. They were also invited to opt into a list of candidates that was
shared directly with parties, in order to provide parties with a broader pool of candidates to 
select for their party lists. The nominees were able to choose to share their information with 
one or more parties, or no parties at all. Nominees could also opt out of further contact and
could stop participation in the program at any point.
This intervention has natural synergies with existing programs under CPPR, and as such was
implemented as a two-arm treatment with the My Own Commune (MOC) program, 
implemented by the National Democratic Institute (NDI). MOC consists of workshops and 
other programming centered around civil society partners in the communes. 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 3 
Communes were randomly assigned to treatment and control status. For this, secondary data
was used to generate the partition of three-commune sets that minimize the differences 
between the communes in each set (analogous to pair-wise matching using Mahalanobis 
distance). 
Within each triplet of three communes, one was randomly assigned to receive the first 
treatment arm (SMS only), one randomly assigned to receive the second treatment arm (SMS 
and MOC), and the third designated as a control commune in which no interventions were
implemented. 50 communes were assigned to each of these 3 groups. There was no placebo 
status.
The data collection for the evaluation combined both household survey results and secondary 
data from election results (such as the number and gender breakdown of candidates for office).
The surveys consisted of a midline and an endline.2
 
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 
Across the 100 communes in the two treatment groups, 494 women agreed to put themselves 
forward for consideration for the candidate lists of a party after being notified that members of 
their community nominated them to run for office. 433 of these women opted for the CPP, 
while 61 women chose the CNRP or other parties. Out of the 433 women choosing to submit 
their information for the CPP lists, 87 also chose to share their information with at least one 
other party in addition to the CPP. 
The CPP accepted 106 women out of the 433 (24.4%), while the CNRP accepted 3 women out 
of the 126 (2.4%). At the same time, the CNRP also tended to place these women higher on 
their lists, suggesting that while the party was very careful about whether to accept women 
interested in running under their banner, they prioritized their ranking on their list. Out of the 
women participating in our program, 43 were elected, with 40 elected under the CPP and 3 
elected under the CNRP.
In terms of the main treatment effects, the intervention significantly increased women’s 
candidacy for commune council, both in terms of the total number of women running and the 
share of women candidates. The treatment communes have 3 more female candidates than 
comparable control communes, an increase of 19% over the average number of female 
candidates in the control communes. The treatment also increased the relative share of female 
candidates by almost 2.5 percentage-points. 
At the same time, there is no evidence of synergies with existing workshop-based interventions. 
The treatment effects are largely driven by the community-based SMS nominations intervention, 
and the treatment arm that combines this intervention with community workshops has smaller 
treatment effects. Note that this does not necessarily imply that the workshops are ineffective: 
to the contrary, the MOC part of the treatment faced even more implementation difficulties. 
2 Initially a baseline survey was planned, but was canceled due to sensitive political conditions. Given that the 
baseline survey was canceled, the analysis of the survey data focuses on results from the endline survey instead of 
panel analysis. 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 4 
Many of the workshop activities were cancelled and the implementing partner was forced to 
cease all in-country operations in the middle of our study period.
The results on individual-level political and social engagement were more modest. Women in 
treatment groups were not significantly more likely to engage in other political activities (such 
as attending and participating in village meetings, contacting politicians, or voting) than women 
in the control group. There were modest effects on social engagement: women in treatment 
groups were more likely to report associational memberships and tended to have more 
contacts on their phones than women in the control group. Notably, there were also changes 
in the perception of social issues: women in the treatment group were more likely to report 
that women's rights are one of the most important issues facing the country. 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 5 
EVALUATION PURPOSE &
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
EVALUATION PURPOSE
This evaluation is the first application of a randomized control trial to evaluate the impact of 
programs under the Cambodia Political Processes and Reforms (CPPR) initiative. The CPPR is 
intended to "improve political competition and government accountability" in Cambodia, with 
particular attention to increasing the participation of women and underrepresented groups in 
electoral and political processes. Although there are no government policies actively restricting 
civic engagement of women, there are still substantial gaps across a number of issue areas. 
Many of the barriers are linked to socio-economic circumstances, such as adverse work 
environments or lack of education, but culture and norms can play a role as well. In addition to 
empowering groups traditionally excluded from politics, encouraging women to participate in 
politics promotes improved electoral competition and increased incentives for politicians to 
address issues of concern for these groups.
A number of interventions promoting civic engagement of women have been attempted in 
Cambodia. Examples include voter education programs, citizen and candidate forums, 
community-level workshops, and information campaigns. These programs are popular and 
largely successful in terms of participation–recipients are engaged and participate readily, and 
many of the activities have been successfully sustained and extended to other areas. However, 
rigorous impact evaluation results are not available in order to link these programs to broader 
outcomes for civic engagement of women. The lack of data and the fact that there are 
numerous civil society organizations (CSOs) and development agencies operating in the 
governance space make it difficult to attribute causal effects to any single program. 
Furthermore, the inability to identify effective program components makes it difficult to 
generate policy-relevant and actionable lessons from these activities.
This evaluation focuses on community-based approaches to lowering the social barrier to entry 
for women in Cambodian politics. The treatment uses a community-based SMS nominations 
system to address the external factors motivating candidacy by involving the community in 
nominating women that they think would be good candidates for local office, and encouraging 
these women to put themselves forward as candidates. In a second treatment arm, this 
community nomination intervention is combined with more traditional workshop-based 
programming supported by USAID Cambodia and implemented by the National Democratic 
Institute (NDI).
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 6 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
This evaluation focuses on two main questions corresponding to two potential barriers that can 
hinder women from putting themselves forward as candidates: 1) extrinsic, where women are 
not actively encouraged to run for office; and 2) intrinsic, where women lack political efficacy3
or interest in running for office. The first explores ways to lower community barriers to entry 
for female candidates in local office, while the second explores ways to improve the civic 
engagement of women. Building on these potential barriers, the two treatment arms focus on 
interventions not only for women considering running for office, but for their community as a 
whole. The first treatment arm uses a community-based SMS nominations system to address 
the external factors motivating candidacy by involving the community in nominating women that 
they think would be good candidates for local office, and encouraging these women to put 
themselves forward as candidates. The second treatment arm combines this intervention with 
more traditional workshop-based programming.
The evaluation questions for this study are as follows:
Lowering barriers to entry for female candidates in local office
• Did the intervention increase the number (and share) of women running for commune
council?
• Are there differences in these figures among parties?
Improving civic engagement of women
• Did the intervention improve the political efficacy of women?
○ Improved political knowledge
○ Improved awareness of policy issues
• Did the intervention reduce gaps in political participation and access for women?
○ Participation in community activities
○ Voting and participation in political activities
In terms of measurement, because civic engagement is a broad concept, in addition to 
examining the direct effect of the intervention on women’s candidacy, the evaluation also 
measured indicators corresponding to other related program objectives under CPPR, such as 
individual perceptions and political views, and community-level engagement, measured using 
midline and endline surveys. At the same time, our ability to explore many of the broader civic 
engagement outcomes is limited because of political sensitivity. This sensitivity impacted the 
evaluation in two main aspects. First, many of the modules on political activities and political 
attitudes were removed from the midline and endline. Second, we were unable to conduct the 
follow-up survey of nominees and candidates, limiting our ability to explore specific mechanisms 
at the individual nominee level. 
3 Used here in the broadest sense – whether citizens believe that they have a say in government and what is their 
sense of confidence in understanding and influence government affairs.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 7 
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The CPPR initiative is intended to "improve political competition and government 
accountability" in Cambodia, with particular attention to increasing the participation of women 
and youth in electoral and political processes. The focus on the civic engagement of women and 
youth stems from country-specific objectives to bridge gaps in participation and engagement. 
Although there are no government policies actively restricting civic engagement of women and 
youth, there are still substantial gaps across a number of issue areas. Many of the barriers are 
linked to socio-economic circumstances, such as adverse work environments or lack of 
education, but culture and norms can play a role as well. In addition to empowering groups 
traditionally excluded from politics, encouraging women and youth to participate in politics 
promotes improved electoral competition and increased incentives for politicians to address 
issues of concern for these groups.
At the same time, because the research on participation in Cambodia suggests that the 
participation gap for youth may stem largely from life-cycle effects,4
 this evaluation focuses on 
the effectiveness of interventions for increasing women’s political engagement. In addition, 
because these groups differ in their mode of engagement (even if there is substantial overlap 
between the groups in the form of young women), focusing on one or the other allows the use 
of more targeted interventions. Furthermore, designing an intervention and evaluation targeted 
to one group allows for a clearer test of the specific hypotheses.
Addressing the political participation of women is important because the gender imbalance 
among Cambodian elected representatives is especially acute at the local level: elections results 
from 2007 indicate that less than 15% of members of commune council are female. While the 
number of women candidates increased in 2012 to 25.4%, only 18% actually won office (NEC 
2012). 
In addition to empowering groups traditionally excluded from politics, encouraging women to 
run for office has the added benefit of improving democratic processes by better reflecting the 
viewpoints of constituents and adding new perspectives to policy-making (Holman 2015; Barnes 
2012; Barnes 2016; O’Brien 2018; Barnes and Holman 2019). Clayton, O’Brien, and Piscopo 
also find implications for legitimacy: their survey experiments show that the presence of women
on decision-making panels can legitimize decisions. 
Furthermore, research from other decentralized consolidating democracies (such as the 
Philippines and Indonesia) demonstrates that national level politicians tend to get their start in 
local-level offices (Labonne et. al. 2019). This suggests an important implication of local level 
initiatives to broaden the pool of candidates for office: if candidate quality and competition can 
be increased at the lowest level of government, the quality of future leaders at higher levels can 
4 See, e.g., Eng and Hughes (2017) on how Cambodian youth are engaging with politics in different ways and 
through different avenues, such as social media. 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 8 
be improved. Furthermore, the practice of engaging in politics, even at the local level, will 
contribute to a greater sense of political efficacy and continued involvement in politics. 
This intervention builds on efforts in other countries to improve the numbers of women 
holding political office. In terms of candidacy, Fox and Lawless (2010) find a wide gender gap for 
political recruitment: even qualified and well-connected women are less likely to be recruited to 
run for office than men in similar circumstances. Nor are women seeking office on their own: 
Preece, Stoddard and Fisher (2016) show that women were less likely to respond to 
recruitment efforts than men. Relatedly, using survey experiments, Kanthak and Woon (2015) 
find that men and women volunteer for positions at similar rates, but when a position required 
an election, women’s willingness to volunteer dropped from 82.2% to 50% even if the positions 
were identical. By contrast, men were willing to be considered for election at similar rates that 
they were willing to volunteer, suggesting that women are more risk averse, which translates to 
election aversion. Fox and Lawless (2011) similarly present evidence for greater “internal” 
barriers for women’s participation using survey data. They find that even when men and women 
have similar professions, education, income, and levels of political interest, women are less 
likely to see themselves as qualified for political participation. These differences in perception 
could not be explained by differences in credentials or other factors, suggesting that many of 
the barriers to women’s participation are perceptions-based. But “external” barriers and 
perceptions also matter: Huddy and Terkildsen (1993) find evidence of stereotypical voter 
expectations, that men have more expertise on military matters while women have more 
expertise on “soft” issues, that are linked to gender stereotypes about men and women’s 
personality traits. Bauer (2014) extends this work by showing that these stereotypes affect 
electability, but only when the issue of gender is explicitly activated in the campaign.
Closest to this evaluation’s intervention is work by Karpowitz, Monson and Preece (2017), who 
use a field experiment to explore the determinants of women’s candidacy and subsequent 
electoral success. Their treatment addresses both the “supply” of women candidates and the 
voter “demand” for women candidates using a three-arm treatment: (i) having party leaders 
invite women to run for office, (ii) encouraging voters to elect female candidates, (iii) combining 
both the “supply” and “demand” treatments. They find that both treatments were individually 
effective, and combining the treatments yielded the largest effects. 
The design of this intervention builds on the previous work on individual-level determinants and 
constraints for participation by combining it with community-level factors, in recognition of the 
social and community-level barriers to women's participation. First, even if global norms are 
indicating popular support for women’s inclusion in politics in the abstract, this is not translating 
to a dismantling of social barriers at the community and household level. Even in advanced 
democracies, gender stereotypes still hamper the perception of women in both the workplace 
(see, e.g., Heilman 2012) and the political arena (see, e.g., Huddy and Terkildsen 1993; 
Sanbonmatsu 2002).
Second, the literature on individual motivations for women to become involved in politics 
center on the notion of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. Are women driven by external factors 
such as potential compensation, limitations on their time, and institutional or economic 
constraints? Or are the important factors largely internal, in that women lack political efficacy 
or interest in politics? These factors also have implications for the design of interventions:
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 9 
Holman and Schneider (2016) find that even the way that the gap in women’s participation is 
presented has important implications for women’s political ambition. One puzzle in the 
literature is the generally low rate of women’s participation in politics across countries, despite 
variations in institutional constraints as well as the extrinsic and intrinsic factors that we would
expect to matter.
As a result, this evaluation contributes to the research on women’s political engagement by 
focusing on the social aspect of political influence in addition to individual-level factors. The 
literature on gender and political engagement tends to focus on factors that are largely within 
the individual’s control: whether she votes, whether she joins a party, whether she attends an 
assembly or a rally, or whether she stands for office. At the same time, in addition to 
understanding these individual-level factors, it is just as important to understand how those 
traits and activities are perceived by the broader community (Cruz and Tolentino, 2019). For 
example, in many contexts, women’s involvement in politics may not be seen as socially 
acceptable, even when there are no formal restrictions on their roles and involvement in 
politics. Even in political environments where women’s involvement is encouraged, women may 
still face social or cultural barriers: in many cases, women are expected to be more engaged in 
their communities, with greater social and familial responsibilities. In other words, it is not only 
that there are differential barriers to women’s participation in politics, but the social 
perceptions and community assessment of these activities may themselves be gendered (Cruz 
and Tolentino, 2019). 
BARRIERS TO WOMEN’S POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN CAMBODIA
These social barriers are especially relevant in Cambodia. For example, a 2012 study by the 
International Foundation for Electoral Systems showed strong support for women’s 
participation in politics among Cambodians: 77 percent strongly supported women serving in 
Commune Councils, 67 percent strongly supported women serving in the National Assembly 
and 60 percent strongly supported women heading a political party. However, women are still 
underrepresented at both the national and commune level and face myriad gender-based 
socioeconomic barriers to entering politics, including lower literacy rates, an emphasis on the 
need for women to focus themselves as the moral and economic keystone of their household, 
common understanding of politics as “a man’s world,” and so on. In particular, gender 
stereotyping under chbab srey, a traditional code of conduct legitimating gender inequality, can 
inhibit women’s participation in politics.
While there have been a number of information campaigns targeted at educating and 
empowering women for politics in Cambodia, there are no similar initiatives aimed at improving 
the candidate selection process. For political reforms to succeed, it is important not only to 
educate women about responsible voting, but also to provide them with viable choices on the 
ballot. 
CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL CLIMATE
In addition to social barriers to women’s political participation, an important factor in political 
engagement more broadly is the changing nature of Cambodia’s political climate. The time 
period covered by the intervention and the subsequent surveys also coincided with increasing 
political tensions in Cambodia, especially leading up to the July 29, 2018 general elections. Even 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 10
if the changes in the political climate did not differentially affect women, the tensions did affect 
the timing and processes of the project. In particular, the baseline survey was canceled, the 
midline and endline surveys faced delays and required revisions to the political modules, and a 
crucial survey of women candidates and nominees had to be canceled outright. More 
information about the political climate and the timeline of political events during the study 
period are available in the Annex.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 11
EVALUATION METHODS & 
LIMITATIONS 
This evaluation is the first use of a randomized control trial (RCT) to evaluate CPPR program 
activities, and only one of a handful of RCTs among other USAID programs in Cambodia. This 
is because while a number of interventions promoting civic engagement of women have been 
attempted in Cambodia, evaluation results are not always able to link these programs to 
broader outcomes for civic engagement. 
Examples include voter education programs, citizen and candidate forums, community-level 
workshops, and information campaigns. These programs are popular and largely successful in 
terms of participation–recipients are engaged and participate readily, and many of the activities 
have been sustained and extended to other areas. However, impact evaluations of these 
programs are largely qualitative, making it difficult to attribute causal effects to any single 
program. Furthermore, the inability to identify effective program components makes it difficult 
to generate policy-relevant and actionable lessons from these activities. In this context, this 
evaluation was designed both to understand the causal effect of interventions to improve 
women’s political engagement, as well as the subsequent mechanisms behind any effects. 
Consistent with the evaluation questions outlined above, the first part of the treatment
addresses the external factors motivating candidacy. Entire communities are treated by having 
individuals nominate women in their community that they think would be good candidates for 
commune council, and subsequently encouraging these women to seek office. Each respondent 
is asked to nominate a woman that they know to run for office by texting the person’s name 
and number into an SMS system, which aggregated all of the nominations and created a list of 
potential nominees for further contact. 
For each nomination solicited, an enumerator administered a short information treatment 
about the importance of encouraging women to run for office. Then respondents are asked to 
provide nominations that meet the following criteria: (i) women that they think would be good 
candidates for commune council; and (ii) women that they know personally (i.e. the nominee’s 
cell phone number is an existing contact in the respondent’s phone). These nominations are 
submitted via an SMS text system, which aggregated the nominations and counted the number 
of referrals and nominations for each individual. 
The second phase of this work then addressed the concern that women may be choosing not 
to run because of a perceived lack of political knowledge or experience. Using the list 
generated from our SMS system, the team then contacted the individual nominees and informed
them that members of their community have nominated them to run for commune council. 
Individuals nominated were provided with information on the candidacy process as well as the 
role of political parties. They were also invited to opt into a list of candidates that was shared 
directly with parties, in order to provide parties with a broader pool of candidates to select for 
their party lists. The nominees were able to choose to share their information with one or 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 12
more parties, or no parties at all. Nominees could also opt out of further contact and 
participation in the program at any point.
This intervention has natural synergies with existing programs under CPPR, and as such was
implemented as a two-arm treatment with the My Own Commune (MOC) program. MOC 
consists of workshops and other programming centered around CSO partners in the 
communes.5
 
RANDOMIZATION AND TREATMENT ALLOCATION 
The MOC implementing partners were able to operate in 150 communes, which formed the 
basis for the randomization process. Within each province, secondary data was used to 
generate sets of three communes that are closely matched in terms of previous election results, 
economic conditions, and level of urbanization. This was done by identifying the partition of 
three-commune sets (or triplets) that minimize the difference between the communes across 
the variables of interest (analogous to pairwise matching using Mahalanobis distance). In other 
words, pairwise matching ensures that the two treatment groups and control group are similar 
before the treatment is assigned, strengthening the internal validity of the evaluation.
Within each triplet of three communes, one was randomly assigned to receive the first 
treatment arm (SMS only), one randomly assigned to receive the second treatment arm (SMS 
and MOC), and the third designated as a control commune in which no interventions were
implemented (see Table 1). There was no placebo status.
Table 1: Treatment and Control Activities by Group
Treatment 1:
50 communes
Treatment 2:
50 communes
Control: 
50 communes
SMS Nominations Only SMS and MOC No activities
In addition to testing the effect of the community-based SMS intervention for increasing 
women's political participation, the two-arm treatment approach also allows for a test of 
potential synergies between the community-based SMS approach and the intensive workshops. 
Interviews with CSOs indicated that while workshops are largely successful in raising awareness 
of the need to involve women candidates, women themselves were reluctant to put themselves 
forward as potential candidates, even after workshop-based skill-building efforts to increase 
confidence and the sense of political efficacy.6 The evaluation investigated whether the
community-based nominations approach, in conjunction with these efforts, may help bridge the 
gap between the training and workshops at the individual level and the selection process at the 
party level. At the same time, because workshops have been conducted extensively in the 
Cambodian context (both by USAID and other international organizations) and the advantages 
and limitations of workshops are fairly well understood, this impact evaluation does not devote 
an additional treatment arm to testing the effect of workshops as a separate intervention.
5 The protocol for MOC is included in the annex.
6 Author interviews conducted during the scoping visit (February 2015).
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 13
COMMUNITY-BASED SMS INTERVENTION 
The community-based SMS intervention was divided into two phases. In Phase I, enumerators 
used a random walk method to solicit nominations from members of the community in a survey 
format. Respondents were invited to share the names of any women in their commune whom 
they thought would be good candidates for the commune council elections. The names, villages, 
and contact numbers (when available) for the women nominated were recorded and sent via 
SMS to a backend system (the sequence diagram (Figure 1) below illustrates the technical 
components of the intervention).
Figure 1: Sequence of Technical Events for Community-Based SMS Nominations 
Once received, the SMS system aggregated these nominations by name and/or phone number 
to create a list of nominees. In total, 100 communes in 6 provinces were visited with 80 
individuals interviewed per commune for this work. (The exception was one commune where 
100 individuals were interviewed by mistake, giving a total of 8,020 individuals interviewed for 
Phase I.) From these visits, 5,697 individuals (71%) made at least one nomination and 7,455 
nominations were received.
For the second phase of the SMS implementation, enumerators visited 636 women who had 
been nominated during Phase I. Preference for visits was given to women who had received the 
most nominations in their communes. During these visits, enumerators informed nominees of 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 14
the project, its purpose and that the respondent had been nominated by the individuals in their 
commune as a potential candidate for commune council election. The enumerator then 
collected basic data on the respondent and asked the nominee which party, if any, they would 
like to share their name and contact details with. This information was later given to the 
political parties in meetings held by NDI. Staff from NDI met with party representatives in 
order to explain the project and provide the contact information of the nominees who were 
interested in being considered for the party's list.
DATA COLLECTION 
This evaluation combines both observable outcomes (such as the number and gender 
breakdown of candidates for office and election results) and survey-based measures. The 
surveys consist of a midline and an endline. Initially a baseline survey was planned, but was 
canceled due to sensitive political conditions after the elections. Given that the baseline survey 
was canceled, the analysis focuses on results from the endline survey instead of panel analysis.
7
For the two data collection rounds, surveys were conducted after the implementation of the 
treatment interventions, and 24 individuals for each treatment and control commune were
initially selected using a random walk process for the midline survey and re-surveyed for the 
endline survey.
8 Each survey respondent was contacted in-person by a research team member 
and was asked to participate in the survey. Enumerators obtained oral consent for participation 
from all participants at the time of the survey.9 The survey generally took between 45 and 60
minutes to complete and enumerators recorded answers on a tablet. Respondents were 
informed that they could opt out of individual questions, or even opt out of the survey at any 
point. 
Because of the sensitivity of political questions in the Cambodian context, the survey 
instrument was designed to minimize non-response and social desirability bias. Examples of the 
survey methodology include the use of flashcards or pictures to allow respondents to point to 
answers rather than state them out loud, as well as shielded response techniques for 
particularly sensitive items. At the same time, because the political climate of Cambodia became 
increasingly sensitive throughout the project period and especially after the elections, questions 
on political parties, which were initially designed for inclusion, were not included in either the
midline or the endline. After the survey was completed, enumerators presented a token gift to 
the respondents for participation.10 
7 Midline survey data is also available but not used in the analysis.
8 While rosters are available in some villages, they are not uniformly available in our project area.
9 Oral consent is preferable to written consent for the following reasons: 1) the study presents no more than 
minimal risk of harm to the subjects; 2) because safeguards will be taken to prevent individuals in the survey from 
being identified, the presence of paper forms linking respondents with the survey data would present a greater 
challenge to maintaining confidentiality; and 3) it is not common practice in Cambodia for respondents to sign 
written forms, and in the less urbanized areas, written consent runs the risk of making illiterate or semi-literate 
participants feel uncomfortable.
10 In Cambodia, formal payment for participation may have the adverse effect of making respondents feel obligated 
to participate, but a small gift of appreciation is in line with cultural norms. According to local survey teams, 
household goods or grocery items are appropriate gifts, typically with a value ranging from USD $.50 − 2.00.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 15
The use of tablets for data collection reduced the possibility of data entry errors from human 
encoders. Data validation processes included checking a sample of the encoded data from each 
enumerator, as well as statistical verification to detect anomalies in the data. Data 
confidentiality was ensured at each stage of the process. The dataset is being stored in secure 
servers and was encrypted using industry standard protocols when in transit.
DATA ANALYSIS
The analysis compares the treatment and control groups with regard to the variables of interest 
in order to identify differences between the groups. Because the groups are randomly assigned 
at the onset, any difference between the groups can be attributed to the effects of the 
interventions. 
The commune-level regressions will take the general form of:
𝑌𝑌𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 = 𝛼𝛼 + 𝛽𝛽 (Treatment𝑗𝑗) + 𝛾𝛾𝑗𝑗 + 𝜀𝜀𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗
where 𝑌𝑌𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 is a vector of outcome variables for women’s political engagement in commune j in 
triplet k. These outcome variables include: number of female candidates and share of women 
running for office. Treatment𝑗𝑗 is an indicator taking the value of 1 if either treatment arm is 
implemented in commune j and 0 otherwise. In other words, Treatment𝑗𝑗 pools the two 
treatment arms. Triplet-specific unobservables are represented by 𝛾𝛾𝑗𝑗 (triplet fixed effects) and 
𝜀𝜀𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 is the standard error term. Regressions disaggregating the two treatment arms are also 
included and take the form:
𝑌𝑌𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 = 𝛼𝛼 + 𝛽𝛽1 (T1𝑗𝑗) + 𝛽𝛽2 (T2𝑗𝑗) + 𝛾𝛾𝑗𝑗 + 𝜀𝜀𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗
where 𝑌𝑌𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 is the same vector of outcome variables for women’s political engagement in 
commune j in triplet k. T1𝑗𝑗 is an indicator taking the value of 1 if the SMS-only treatment arm is 
implemented in commune j and 0 otherwise. T2𝑗𝑗 is an indicator taking the value of 1 if the SMS 
and MOC treatment arm is implemented in commune j and 0 otherwise. Triplet-specific 
unobservables are represented by 𝛾𝛾𝑗𝑗 (triplet fixed effects) and 𝜀𝜀𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 is the standard error term.
The individual-level regressions take a similar form, and the main results presented compare 
women in the treatment groups to women in the control group: 
𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 = 𝛼𝛼 + 𝛽𝛽 (Treatment𝑗𝑗) + 𝛾𝛾𝑗𝑗 + 𝜀𝜀𝑖𝑖𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗
where 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 is a vector of outcome variables for the political and social engagement of individual 
woman i in commune j in triplet k. These outcome variables include both political variables 
(such as voting behavior and political knowledge) as well as social engagement variables (such as 
participation in community level volunteering and other activities). Treatment𝑗𝑗 is an indicator 
taking the value of 1 if either treatment arm is implemented in commune j and 0 otherwise. In 
other words, Treatment𝑗𝑗 pools the two treatment arms. Triplet-specific unobservables are 
represented by 𝛾𝛾𝑗𝑗 (triplet fixed effects) and 𝜀𝜀𝑖𝑖𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 is the standard error term.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 16
Regressions for all respondents in treatment and control group (including men) were also 
conducted for comparison and robustness checks, but are not included because differences 
between the treatment and control groups are largely driven by female respondents.
LIMITATIONS 
The experimental research design has a number of advantages for the Cambodian context. 
First, although there are many initiatives centered on improving political engagement of women 
and other underrepresented groups, the lack of data and multiple CSOs and development 
agencies operating in the space make it difficult to attribute causal effects to any single program. 
Moreover, the inability to identify effective program components makes it difficult to generate 
actionable lessons from the different activities. The use of a two-arm treatment design is 
intended to assess the effectiveness of USAID’s programming for women’s political engagement 
by directly assessing the causal effects of the initiatives. 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 17
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
FINDINGS
Across the 100 communes in the two treatment groups, 494 women agreed to put themselves 
forward for consideration for the candidate lists of a party after being notified that members of 
their community nominated them to run for office. Women putting themselves forward for 
candidacy could indicate any number of political parties to submit their information to, and 
while 433 indicated openness to being considered by the CPP for candidacy, 61 women chose 
an opposition party instead, and another 87 women chose to share their information with at 
least one opposition party in addition to the CPP. In sum, 148 women indicated openness to 
sharing their information with at least one opposition party.
The parties varied in terms of including women from our intervention on their candidate lists. 
The CPP accepted 106 women out of the 433 (24.4%) indicating openness for their 
consideration. The CNRP accepted 3 women out of the 126 (2.4%) indicating openness for 
their consideration. At the same time, the CNRP also tended to place these women higher on 
their lists, suggesting that while the party was very careful about whether to accept women 
interested in running under their banner, they prioritized their ranking on their list. 
Out of the women participating in our program, 43 were elected, with 40 elected under the 
CPP and 3 elected under the CNRP. Consistent with the more focused approach of the 
opposition parties in general, all three women that CNRP included on their list from our 
program were elected. None of the women in our intervention were included in any of the 
other party lists. 
Overall, in the communes in the study area, the parties fielded slates of candidates with over 
22% women. A gender breakdown of candidates by party is shown in Figure 2. 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 18
Figure 2: Gender Breakdown of Candidates by Party
Source: National Election Committee, coded by TNS
In terms of the main treatment effects, the intervention significantly increased women’s 
candidacy for commune council, both in terms of the total number of women running and the 
share of women candidates. 
On average, the treatment communes have 3 more female candidates than the control 
communes, for an average of 19 female candidates compared to the average of just under 16 
female candidates in the control communes, an increase of 19%. The treatment also improves 
the relative share of female candidates by almost 2.5 percentage points. These are large effects 
especially in a context without a longstanding tradition of women in politics. To contextualize 
the effect, a similar pilot program in the Philippines aimed at increasing competitiveness in local 
elections (without regard for gender) resulted in a more modest increase of 1 additional 
candidate per village (Cruz and Davidson, 2015). 
The positive effect on women’s candidacy is also evident when breaking down this figure by 
party, although there are differences across parties in terms of the size of the effect.11 Figures 3 
and 4 present the effect of the interventions (both treatment arms pooled) on the number of 
female candidates and the share of female candidates, respectively. For simplicity, the 
coefficients (from linear regression with triplet fixed effects) are plotted in comparison to the 
control group, but full tables are available in the appendix (Annex VI).
11 Note that there were fewer total candidates and more missing information for the smaller parties, especially the 
LDP.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 19
Figure 3: Treatment and Number of Female Candidates
Source: NORC Household Survey
Figure 4: Treatment and Share of Female Candidates
Source: NORC Household Survey
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 20
Comparing the two different treatment arms shows more robust treatment effects in the SMS￾only treatment arm than when the SMS treatment is combined with the My Own Commune 
(MOC) workshop-based interventions. While the coefficients for the effects of the two 
different treatment arms are statistically indistinguishable, significant differences between the 
treatment and control hold only for the SMS-only treatment arm. Figures 5 and 6 present the 
effect on the number of candidates of the SMS-only treatment and the SMS + MOC treatment, 
respectively. 12
The communes that received only the SMS nominations treatment had almost 4 more female 
candidates running for commune council compared to the control group, while the effect is no 
longer statistically significant for the SMS + MOC treatment. The individual party effects are 
similarly smaller when broken down by party. 
Figure 5: SMS Treatment and Number of Female Candidates
Source: NORC Household Survey
12 Figures present the results of regressions as specified in the models in the previous section, however, results are 
substantively similar when using Bonferroni-adjusted p-values for multiple comparisons.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 21
Figure 6: SMS + MOC Treatment and Number of Female Candidates
Source: NORC Household Survey
The difference between the SMS-only and SMS + MOC treatment arms is also evident in the 
results on share of female candidates, while the main results for the pooled treatment are 
largely driven by the SMS-only treatment. Figures 7 and 8 present the effect on the share of 
candidates of the SMS-only treatment and the SMS + MOC treatment, respectively. 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 22
Figure 7: SMS Treatment and Share of Female Candidates 
Source: NORC Household Survey
Figure 8: SMS + MOC Treatment and Share of Female Candidates
Source: NORC Household Survey
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 23
The results from comparing the two treatment arms indicate no evidence of synergies between 
the community-based nominations treatment and existing workshop-based gender 
programming conducted by USAID with the CSO partners. At the same time, we do not have 
enough information to definitively explain why one treatment arm worked better than the 
other.
One possibility is that the multiple interventions crowded each other out. Given a menu of 
alternative ways of participating in politics, women may have opted to participate in the 
workshops rather than other commune-level meetings or initiatives. If this is the case, however, 
it would have to take the form of modes of participation that we were not able to measure in 
the survey (for example, we were not able to measure involvement in political parties or 
campaign activities because it was too politically sensitive to ask, so there may have been a 
difference there), as there are no detectable differences in participation between the two 
treatment arms.
Another possibility is that women in the SMS and MOC treatment arm were reacting not only 
to the intervention, but to changes in the broader political environment. In particular, the post￾election period saw unprecedented restrictions on the operations of NGOs in Cambodia. By 
August, the government had required that NDI cease all in-country operations. It could be that 
the treatment was conveying not only the training and information from the workshops, but 
also providing people with information about the government’s shut down of the NGOs. Being 
part of a program that was shut down may have then resulted in lower political engagement 
compared to the SMS only treatment arm. 
HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESULTS
While the commune-level results indicate significant effects of the treatment on increasing the 
number of women seeking office, the individual-level results on political engagement of women 
are much more modest. This may be a result of the changing political sensitivities between the 
project design phase and the subsequent midline and endline surveys. The time period covered 
by the intervention and the subsequent surveys coincided with increasing political tensions in 
Cambodia, affecting not only the timelines of the project but also the evaluation tools available.
In fact, many questions that were acceptable to ask at the scoping and pilot survey stage could 
no longer be included for consideration in the survey instruments. 
The baseline survey was canceled due to delays in securing approval from the Ministry of 
Interior. While the implementation of the SMS-only treatment proceeded as planned, the 
implementation of the workshop-based MOC was affected by delays as well, culminating in a 
government-mandated halt to all in-country operations of the implementing partner, NDI.
While the midline and endline surveys proceeded, both faced delays and required revisions to 
the political modules of the survey instrument, restricting the ability to evaluate changes in 
party support or perception at the individual level. Most crucially, the important survey of 
women candidates and nominees had to be canceled outright. More information about the 
political climate and the timeline of political events during the study period are available in the 
Annex. 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 24
Consequently, available outcome measures are limited. The subsequent analysis focus on two 
main areas: political engagement and social engagement. For political engagement, we look at 
differences in direct political activity: 1) whether the respondent or a household member holds 
political office; 2) whether the respondent contacted a politician; and 3) whether the 
respondent voted; and involvement in commune politics: 1) whether the respondent attended a 
commune assembly; and 2) whether the respondent spoke at a commune assembly. 
For community engagement, the measures include volunteering and membership in a variety of 
associations, as well as network-based measures of engagement such as the number of contacts 
in the respondent’s cell phone and the number of friends the respondent reports engaging with 
in their commune.
Last, while we were not able to collect information on individual attitudes towards the political 
parties, we can show that there were some differences in the perceptions of which social issues 
were important. This comes from a module in which respondents were asked to rank social 
issues in terms of importance.
Despite the difficulties in conducting the data collection, there is suggestive evidence that the 
treatment increased the number of women contacting politicians, but this is not robust to 
different specifications and estimation methods. There is little difference in voting, but this is 
largely because of the high rates of reported voter turnout for the 2017 commune council
election, at over 90%. There are also no effects on household members in office or attendance 
and participation in village assemblies.
Figure 9: SMS Treatment and Political Engagement
Source: NORC Household Survey
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 25
At the same time, there are notable differences among women in treatment and control villages 
in terms of social engagement (see Figure 10). Women in the treatment communes report 
more associational memberships and more contacts in their cell phones. There is also 
suggestive evidence of greater volunteering, but again, like the results for contacting politicians, 
this result is not robust to different specifications and estimation methods.
Figure 10: SMS Treatment and Community Engagement
Source: NORC Household Survey
One notable result from the survey data is the change in social perceptions of what 
respondents think are the most important issues (see Figure 11). These results are taken from 
a module in which respondents were asked to identify the most important issues to them 
(reporting the top 3). Respondents in treatment villages are less likely to be concerned that 
elections are not free and fair, suggesting that the ability to participate in nominating an 
individual may have contributed to greater confidence in the elections process. Women in 
treatment villages were also more likely to prioritize women's rights and environmental issues 
than women in control villages.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 26
Figure 11: SMS Treatment and Top Social Issues
Source: NORC Household Survey
CONCLUSIONS 
Across the 100 communes in the two treatment groups, 494 women agreed to put themselves 
forward for consideration for the candidate lists of a party after being notified that members of 
their community nominated them to run for office. Out of these 494 women participating in 
our program, 43 were elected to office. 
The intervention significantly increased women’s candidacy for commune council, both in terms 
of the total number of women running and the share of women candidates. The treatment 
communes have 3 more female candidates than control communes, an increase of 16%, and the 
treatment improves the relative share of female candidates by almost 2.5 percentage-points. 
In terms of policy relevance, increases along these lines would be striking even in other country 
contexts. Despite increased attention to issues of women’s inclusion worldwide, noticeable 
changes in the share of women in office generally take years to accomplish. For example, in 
Cambodia, the government has also been engaged in efforts to improve women’s 
representation at the national parliamentary level. After a large jump in 2006, the proportion of 
women holding seats has held steady at around 20% since 2010. The largest year to year change 
was 10 percentage-points from 2006 to 2007, but most year to year changes are much more 
modest (the modal change is 0, and on average, the year over year changes are less than 1 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 27
percentage-point). Even developed countries and other countries in the region demonstrate 
changes of around 1 percentage-point or less, as presented in Figure 12. 
Figure 12: Share of Women in National Legislatures in Cambodia, the East Asia 
and Pacific Region, and OECD Countries 
Source: World Development Indicators
In terms of other forms of political and social engagement, the treatment effects are more 
limited. The treatment did not significantly affect the political engagement of women in the 
treatment groups compared to women in the control groups. However, the treatment did 
increase some measures of social engagement, such as associational memberships and phone 
contacts. Women in the treatment groups were also more likely to report that women's rights
is an important issue facing Cambodia, compared to women in the control groups. 
This project and the subsequent impact evaluation were conducted in an unusual time in 
Cambodian politics. Political tensions heightened in the lead up to the commune elections in 
June 2017. In August 2017, the NDI was forced to cease all in-country operations. In 
September 2017, Kem Sokha, the party leader of the opposition CNRP, was arrested. By 
December 2017, the CNRP party was dissolved. In this climate of increasing limitations on 
political freedoms, the treatment effects are even more notable. 
The results from the impact evaluation suggest that community-based nomination treatments 
are effective mechanisms for increasing the number of women running for office in Cambodia. 
At the same time, there is no evidence of synergies with existing workshop-based gender 
programming conducted by CSOs. In fact, treatment effects were smaller in communes with 
both the community-based SMS nominations and the workshops. . 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 28
ANNEXES 
ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK
USAID/CAMBODIA CDR Impact Evaluation
SMS Intervention
STATEMENT OF WORK
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this task is to implement an intervention to be tested through an evaluation of 
USAID Cambodia Democratic Reforms (CDR) program’s activities to improve the civic 
engagement of women, using a randomized control trial. Existing civic engagement programs 
are popular and largely successful in terms of participation–recipients are engaged and 
participate readily, and many of the activities have been successfully sustained and extended to 
other areas. However, rigorous impact evaluation results are not available in order to link 
these programs to broader outcomes for civic engagement. As such, this evaluation will 
examine the extent to which the new initiatives under this program have improved civic 
education and political access for women. This includes (i) increased citizens’ political 
awareness and engagement on issues; (ii) increased civic engagement and advocacy, through 
both formal and informal civil society networks; and (iii) increased responsiveness from elected 
officials and government institutions. The evaluation is being carried out by NORC, the 
evaluator, in cooperation with NDI, which is implementing the CDR program.
Evaluation Questions
The impact evaluation will answer the following development questions under two core 
themes: 
Lowering barriers to entry for female candidates in local office
• Did the program activities increase the number of women contesting local office?
Improving civic engagement of women
• To what extent do program activities improve the civic education of women?
‒ Improved political knowledge and awareness of issues
‒ Improved knowledge of party platforms
• To what extent do program activities reduce gaps in political participation and access?
‒ Improved perception of political efficacy 
‒ Increased openness and acceptance of women in politics (among men and women)
‒ Turnout of women in elections
‒ Self-reported participation in local councils and forums
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 29
INTERVENTION DESCRIPTION
SMS Treatment Overview
For communes selected to receive the SMS intervention, 100 households are selected at 
random using a household list (if available) or list of registered voters. For each household, 
respondents will request to speak to either the male or female head of household to receive 
the information campaign intrervention.
Each respondent is contacted in-person by the SMS intervention implementer field worker, 
who will administer the intervention. Data will be submitted to the centralized system via text 
message. SMS or social media (Twitter, for example) endpoints will receive and translate the 
data, and store the relevant information into a database. Administration of each intervention 
case should take between 15 and 20 minutes.
NORC, the evaluator, will provide the SMS software and video (or printed materials, such as a 
flyer, if use of video is not feasible) to be used to administer the intervention and will provide 
training to the SMS intervention implementer on how to deliver the intervention.
The system then will count the number of referrals and send notifications to the nominated 
individuals. The notifications will take the following form: “[Nominee name], [# of nominations] 
of your friends have nominated you to run for commune council. We would like to provide you 
information about the process of putting your name forward for the party lists.” They will also 
be given the option to opt out of further contact.
With the permission of the nominees, NORC will use the SMS system to provide them with 
information about the candidacy process, including deadlines and instructions for registering for 
candidacy and contacting political parties. They will also be allowed to opt into a list of women 
candidates that will be shared directly with the parties to provide the parties with a broader 
pool of candidates to select for their lists. Nominees may opt out of participation at any point.
SMS Intervention Protocol
In the evaluation, 100 communes will be randomly assigned to treatment and control status; 
treatment communes will receive the SMS intervention. The list of communes where the 
intervention is to be implemented will be provided to the intervention implementer by NORC 
through NDI. 
The steps for the SMS intervention are as follows:
(1) Approximately 100 households are selected at random using a household list (if available) or
list of registered voters. For each household, intervention field workers will request to
speak to either the male or female head of household to receive the information campaign
intervention and receive the participant’s consent to participate. The field worker will
record basic identifying information about each participant.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 30
(2) The intervention field worker will provide information (preferably a short video delivered
on a tablet, but can also be a flyer) to the participant about the importance of encouraging
women to run for office.
(3) The intervention field worker will then ask participants to give nominations that meet the
following criteria: (a) women that they think would be good candidates for commune
council; and (b) women that they know personally (i.e. the nominee’s cell phone number is
an existing contact in the respondent’s phone). They will submit these nominations via an
SMS text system (to be established by NORC and provided to the intervention
implementer), which will aggregate the nominations and notify the nominees that they have
been nominated by members of their commune to stand for commune council. The
respondents will also be left with information about the process for making nominations via
SMS so that they or other members of their social network may submit additional names
later.
TASKS
The intervention implementer will carry out the following tasks.
(1) Based on the list of 100 communes in which the intervention is to be delivered, prepare a
sampling plan to identify households to receive the intervention. (Respondents who do not
consent to participate will be replaced in the sample.) Also prepare a plan for carrying out
and for monitoring and managing the field work.
(2) Recruit sufficient suitably qualified intervention field staff and supervisory staff to carry out
the proposed intervention during a period not to exceed six weeks.
(3) Provide a venue and logistic support for training of intervention field staff and supervisors.
The training will not exceed five days, including at least one day of practice fieldwork. All
intervention field staff will be required to demonstrate satisfactory performance during
practice fieldwork and in any classroom based tests of understanding of the intervention
protocol to be eligible to participate in delivery of the intervention.
(4) Arrange for and oversee the field work for the intervention, subject to the following:
(a) Successfully implement the intervention with at least 100 households in each of the 100
communes identified by NORC for receiving the intervention.
(b) The intervention will be administered as in-person interactions. The monitoring and
management system must track progress in the field and facilitate weekly reporting.
(c) Provide oversight of intervention implementation by intervention field staff with
supervisors with appropriate local language skills, experience with surveys or similar
field-based research and familiarity with the local context.
(d) Facilitate field supervision visits by NDI, NORC and/or USAID, including the provision
of local transportation (vehicle and driver) to observe field work.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 31
(5) Provide a final report providing descriptions of field work including time required to 
complete administration of the intervention, dates and location of intervention 
administration, and problems encountered/resolved.
DELIVERABLES AND SCHEDULE
Deliverables 
(1) Sampling plan
(2) Field work monitoring and management plan
(3) Weekly progress reports during field period
(4) Final report
Schedule
It is expected that the intervention will be delivered during October-November 2016 prior to 
the elections for commune councilors (currently anticipated in June 2017). Thus, the tentative 
timeline for the intervention is:
Late August/early September 2016: Sampling and field work monitoring and management plans 
prepared
Late September/early October 2016: Training and pilot test
October-November 2016: Intervention field work carried out
December 2016: Final report prepared
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 32
ANNEX II: NORC REPORT ON FIELD WORK (APRIL 2017)
SMS Implementation
The community-based SMS intervention was implemented from 30th December 2016 to 18th
January 2017. This work was divided into two phases. In Phase I, enumerators used a random 
walk method to solicit nominations from members of the community in a survey format. 
Respondents were invited to share the names of any women in their commune whom they 
thought would be good candidates for the commune council elections. The names, villages, and 
contact numbers (when available) for the women nominated were recorded and sent via SMS 
to a backend system. Once received, the SMS system aggregated these nominations by name 
and/or phone number to create a list of nominees. 
In total, 100 communes in 6 provinces were visited with 80 individuals interviewed per 
commune for this work. (The exception was one commune where 100 individuals were 
interviewed by mistake, giving a total of 8,020 individuals interviewed for Phase I.) From these 
visits, 5,697 individuals (71%) made at least one nomination and 7,455 nominations were 
received.
For the second phase of the SMS implementation, enumerators visited 636 women who had 
been nominated during Phase I. Preference for visits was given to women who had received the 
most nominations in their communes. During these visits, enumerators informed nominees of 
the project, its purpose and that the respondent had been nominated by the individuals in their 
commune as a potential candidate for commune council election. The enumerator then 
collected basic data on the respondent and asked the nominee which party, if any, they would 
like to share their name and contact details with. This information was later given to the 
political parties in meetings held by NDI. 
The implementation team aimed to have five nominees agree to share their data with at least 
one party in each commune. This target was met in 93 of the 100 communes visited and 494 of 
the 636 women visited for Phase II (78%), agreed to participate in the survey and to share their 
personal details with at least one political party.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 33
Nominator statistics
• Nominators gave between 0-5 nominations, as presented in Table 2. Of these, most
nominators (53%) gave one nomination. Overall, we received 0.9 nominees per
nominator.
Table 2: Nominations per Nominator
Number of nominations Count Percent 
0 2,323 29
1 4,281 53.4
2 1,136 14.2
3 235 2.9
4 28 0.3
5 17 0.2
Total 8,020.00 100
Source: NDI Nominator Survey
• Female and male nominators gave a similar number of nominations, as presented in
Table 3.
Table 3: Nominations per Nominator by Gender
Number of 
nominations
Nominator’s gender
Male Percent 
(N=2,151) 
Female Percent 
(N=5,869) Total Percent
0 30.2 28.5 29
1 52.3 53.8 53.4
2 13.7 14.3 14.2
3 3.1 2.9 2.9
4 0.6 0.3 0.3
5 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total 100 100 100
Source: NDI Nominator Survey
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 34
• Nominators across all age groups gave similar numbers of nominations, as presented in
Table 4.
Table 4: Nominations per Nominator by Age
Number 
of 
nominatio
n 
Nominator's age
18-25
Percent 
(N=571) 
26-35
Percent 
(N=1,81
4) 
36-45
Percent 
(N=1,65
6) 
46-55
Percent 
(N=1,70
4) 
56-65
Percent 
(N=1,66
6) 
66-75
Percent 
(N=520) 
76 and 
above 
Percent 
(N=89) 
Total 
Percent 
0 33.1 27.6 26.3 28.1 30.1 34.4 42.7 29
1 52.2 53 54.6 53.9 52.6 54.2 46.1 53.4
2 10.9 15.8 15.5 15 13.1 9.8 7.9 14.2
3 3.2 2.9 3.1 2.5 3.5 1.5 3.4 2.9
4 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0 0 0.3
5 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0 0 0.2
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: NDI Nominator Survey
Nominee statistics
The following statistics are only for the nominees who were visited for the intervention activity 
and who agreed to share their personal information with one or more political parties. 
Nominees were sorted based on the number of nominations received, with those that received 
the most nominations given priority for enumerator visits. The intervention aimed to have five 
nominees agree to share their data in each commune. This target was met in 93 of the 100 
communes visited. 
No data was collected from nominees who did not give consent to participate in the nominee 
survey, due to ethical considerations. Nominees who gave consent to participate in the survey 
but who declined to share their personal details with any political party are likewise excluded. 
The statistics below, therefore, only represent nominees who were visited for the nominee 
survey and who agreed to share their personal details with one or more political parties.
• As per the design of the intervention, all nominees were female
• Nominees were generally above 25 years old, as presented in Table 5.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 35
Table 5: Nominees by Age
Nominee's age Count Percent 
18-25 17 3.4
26-35 122 24.7
36-45 126 25.5
46-55 118 23.9
56-65 107 21.7
66-75 4 0.8
Total 494 100
Source: NDI Nominee Survey
• Nominees agreed to share their personal details with between 1-9 (the maximum)
parties, as presented in Table 6. Most nominees (82%) selected only 1 party, with the
remaining 18% selecting more than one party.
Table 6: Number of Parties Nominees Agreed to Share Details With
Number of parties nominee agreed to share their personal 
details with Count Percent 
1 404 81.8
2 65 13.2
3 18 3.6
4 4 0.8
5 2 0.4
9 1 0.2
Total 494 100
Source: NDI Nominee Survey
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 36
• Nominees who are 26-35 were more likely to select more than one party, as presented
in Table 7.
Table 7: Number of Parties Nominees Agreed to Share Details With by Age
Number of 
parties 
nominee 
agreed to share 
their personal 
details with
18-25
Percent 
(N=17) 
26-35
Percent 
(N=122) 
36-45
Percent 
(N=126) 
46-55
Percent 
(N=118) 
56-65
Percent 
(N=107) 
66-75
Percent 
(N=4)
Total 
Percent 
1 82.4 70.5 84.9 82.2 90.7 75 81.8
2 11.8 22.1 10.3 12.7 6.5 25 13.2
3 5.9 7.4 2.4 3.4 0.9 0 3.6
4 0 0 1.6 0.8 0.9 0 0.8
5 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 0.4
9 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0.2
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: NDI Nominee Survey
• The most common party selected was the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP)—the ruling
party, as presented in Table 8. 88% of nominees selected to share their details with the
CPP.
Table 8: Parties Nominees Chose to Share Details With
Party chosen by nominee (N=494) Count Percent 
CPP 433 87.65
CNRP 126 25.51
FUNCINPEC 27 5.47
LDP 12 2.43
BEHIVE 7 1.42
KAPP 3 0.61
CNP 4 0.81
KEDP 6 1.21
DRP 4 0.81
Others 1 0.2
Total 623
Source: NDI Nominee Survey
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 37
• Among nominees who did not select the CPP, the vast majority (88%) shared their
information with the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP)—the main opposition
party, as presented in Table 9.
Table 9: Parties Nominees Chose to Share Details With, Given Nominee Did Not 
Choose CPP
Party chosen by nominees who didn’t select the CPP (N=61) Count Percent 
CNRP 54 88.52
FUNCINPEC 5 8.2
LDP 0 0 
BEHIVE 1 1.64
KAPP 1 1.64
CNP 1 1.64
KEDP 2 3.28
DRP 1 1.64
Others 1 1.64
Source: NDI Nominee Survey
• Among nominees who selected only one party, the CPP was selected 86% of the time,
as presented in Table 10. Among individuals who selected more than one party,
however, the CPP was selected 97% of the time and the CNFP was selected 83% of the
time, as presented in Table 11. Interestingly, 80% of respondents who chose more than
one party selected both the CPP and the CNRP, in effect selecting both the ruling and
the opposition party.
Table 10: Party Chosen by Nominees Who Selected Only One Party
Party chosen by nominees who selected only one party (N=404) Count Percent 
CPP 346 85.64
CNRP 51 12.62
FUNCINPEC 4 0.99
LDP 0 0 
BEHIVE 0 0 
KAPP 1 0.25
CNP 0 0 
KEDP 1 0.25
DRP 0 0 
Others 1 0.25
Source: NDI Nominee Survey
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 38
Table 11: Party Chosen by Nominees Who Selected Multiple Parties
Party chosen by nominees who selected multiple parties (N=90) Count Percent 
CPP 87 96.67
CNRP 75 83.33
FUNCINPEC 23 25.56
LDP 12 13.33
BEHIVE 7 7.78
KAPP 2 2.22
CNP 4 4.44
KEDP 5 5.56
DRP 4 4.44
Others 0 0 
Source: NDI Nominee Survey
• Nominees of all age groups selected the CPP, as presented in Table 12.
Table 12: Nominees Who Selected CPP by Age
Nominees who 
selected CPP
18-25
Percent 
(N=17) 
26-35
Percent 
(N=122) 
36-45
Percent 
(N=126) 
46-55
Percent 
(N=118) 
56-65
Percent 
(N=107) 
66-75
Percent 
(N=4)
Total 
Percent 
No 17.6 10.7 11.1 11 15.9 25 12.3
Yes 82.4 89.3 88.9 89 84.1 75 87.7
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: NDI Nominee Survey
• Nominees between 26-35 years old were more likely to select the CNRP, as presented
in Table 13.
Table 13: Nominees Who Selected CNRP by Age
Nominees who 
selected CNRP
18-25
Percent 
(N=17) 
26-35
Percent 
(N=122) 
36-45
Percent 
(N=126) 
46-55
Percent 
(N=118) 
56-65
Percent 
(N=107) 
66-75
Percent 
(N=4)
Total 
Percent 
No 64.7 63.1 78.6 78.8 79.4 75 74.5
Yes 35.3 36.9 21.4 21.2 20.6 25 25.5
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: NDI Nominee Survey
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 39
Baseline and midline data collection
The baseline for this project was eventually cancelled after staff from the local data collection 
firm were detained on multiple occasions causing delays and threatening the future work of the 
data collection firm in Cambodia. These challenges were not expected as multiple local data 
collection firms had reviewed a draft of the baseline survey during a previous scoping mission 
and did not raise any concerns about the content at that time. Despite this, some local leaders 
felt that the content of the baseline survey was too politically sensitive. As a result, TNS 
submitted a request for a letter of support to the Ministry of Interior in Cambodia, which 
would provide clearance to conduct the survey as designed.
While waiting for this letter of support, the research team and TNS agreed to continue to try 
to conduct the baseline survey as designed. However, TNS staff were detained on multiple 
occasions by local authorities and only released after extended discussions. The first detainment 
occurred soon after the launch of the baseline work, and, as a result, the research team revised 
the survey—in consultation with TNS—to remove and revise the questions that were 
considered the most sensitive. After resuming the baseline data collection using this revised 
survey, TNS staff were again detained. During this same period, TNS and USAID Cambodia met 
with the Ministry of Interior to request an update on the application for the letter of support 
and to request an expedited approval. However, this letter was still not issued by the end of 
2016. These detainments, and the lack of an approval letter, made further work on the baseline 
too risky for TNS to continue. As a result, the research team proposed to cancel the baseline 
work, which was approved by USAID. 
Similar issues did not affect the midline work, as a letter of support was received from the 
Ministry of the Interior. As part of this approval, the Ministry required that some questions be 
removed from the household survey, especially those which made reference to any political 
parties. The evaluation team found that because of these changes, the survey lacked any 
method to measure a respondent’s political party preferences. The evaluation team discussed 
this challenge with TNS, and TNS agreed to include one additional question in the household 
survey and to include two questions in a phone survey, which TNS planned to conduct 
independent of the evaluation work. TNS informed the evaluation team that the risk for 
including these additional questions was quite low, and NORC ensured that all additional 
questions were reviewed by NORC’s IRB. Through this approach, the evaluation team was able 
to collect the necessary information for the project’s evaluation while avoiding the 
complications which adversely affected the baseline data collection.
However, it should be noted that even with this letter, the data collection teams faced a risk of 
resistance in the field. The national government decreed all opinion surveys forbidden for the 
two-week period leading up to the commune council elections. This decree underscored the 
sensitive nature of data collection on political topics, which may have heightened the sensitivity 
of residents and local leaders to the midline survey. In order to minimize complications as much 
as possible, the field data collection for the midline was completed more than two weeks in 
advance of the commune council elections.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 40
ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 
Survey Instrument: Baseline Survey (English)
VOTER’S ASSESSMENT (___ and ___, Cambodia)
Questionnaire N {QUESTNUMB}: 
Date of interview {DATE}: 
Time of interview {TIME}: 
Length of interview {LENGTH}: 
Enumerator’s ID {ENUMID}: 
Enumerator’s name {ENUMERATOR}: 
Coordinator’s name {COORDINATOR}: 
Interview situation Done by Yes No Signature Date
Accompanied (FS) 1 2 
Logic Checked (FS) 1 2 
Logic Checked (QC indoor) 1 2 
Accompanied (QC) 1 2 
Tel Back Checked (QC) 1 2 
F2F Back Checked (QC) 1 2 
Data Processing (DP) 1 2 
Standard codes: 1 = No 2 = Yes 66 = Refuse
77 = Do not know 88 = None 99 = Not Applicable
CONFIDENTIALITY: The interviewer takes the responsibility in guarding the confidentiality of all the 
information generated through this instrument.
I am from TNS, a Cambodian research firm, which is conducting a survey as part of USAID’s program 
intended to promote constructive civic engagement and participation of women and youth in 
Cambodia.
Your participation in this survey is important because it is one of the few ways available for 
understanding the perspective of the Cambodian people on civic engagement. It is important to 
understand that this survey is for research and evaluation purposes only. Your participation will neither 
increase nor decrease the likelihood of your community’s participation in any USAID program. Your 
participation in this study does not involve any physical or emotional risk to you beyond that of 
everyday life.
The survey should take no more than 45-60 minutes to complete. Your participation in this survey is 
voluntary. If you are unable or do not want to answer a question, you may decline, and you can end this 
interview at any time. All of your responses will be kept strictly confidential and will only be used in a 
statistical summary.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 41
If you have any questions about the survey, please call 010 333 456 (Mr. Cheat Vuthynun, Supervisor) or 
012 520 603 (Mr. Phan Sothea, Associate Research Manager) so that we may assist you.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 42
{CONSENT} Are you willing to proceed?
No 1 End the interview
Yes 2 
At the end of this survey, we plan to save your contact information for 1 year and may contact you 
about participating in future parts of this study. Will you allow us to save your contact information and 
to contact you for participating in future parts of this study?
{CONSENT2} Are you willing to proceed?
No 1 End the interview 
Yes 2 
Section 1: Respondent information 
Address: Phum (Village): _____________________ {VILLAGE}
Khum (Commune): _____________________ {COMMUNE}
Srok (District): _____________________ {DISTRICT}
Khaet (Province): _____________________ {PROVINCE}
Given Name: _____________________ {GIVENNAME}
Family Name: _____________________ {FAMNAME}
Respondent’s phone number 
(if any): _____________________
Phone number of respondent’s 
relative or neighbor that we can 
contact: _____________________
(What is he/she to you 
____________________ )
Section 2: Household 
Q 1 {COMMUNEYRS} [Single Answer]
How many years have you lived in this commune?
If less than 1 year, please put 0
Record number of year(s): Number
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 43
Q 2 {HHNUMB} [Single Answer]
How many people reside in this household?
By ‘household’ I mean a group of people living daily in the same dwelling space and who eat 3 meals 
together.
Members (Household helpers and guests will be 
included if they have no other house or have 
been living with the household for 6 months or 
more)
Q 4a Now I am going to ask you about your household
ID1 must be Head of Household/spouse of Head of Household (code 1, 2, or 3)
(Q4a = Q2)
Line No.
Relationship to 
Household Head 
[use code]
[Single Answer]
Sex
[Record Age in year]
Age as of Last Birthday
77 Don’t know,
66 Refuse,
99 Not applicable
[Single 
Answer]
Education
[use code]
ID {RELATIONHHH} {SEX} {AGE}
Less than 1 year, put “0” {EDUC} Male Female
{ID1} 1 2 
{ID2} 1 2 
{ID3} 1 2 
{ID4} 1 2 
{ID5} 1 2 
{ID6} 1 2 
{ID7} 1 2 
{ID8} 1 2 
{ID9} 1 2 
Record number of members:
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 44
Code: Relationship to HH Head Code: Education
Head of 
Household
1 2nd cousin 13 1. No formal
schooling
9. Incomplete University
(Undergraduate)
Husband 2 3rd cousin 14 2. Kindergarten 10. Complete University
(Undergraduate)
Wife 3 Grandchildren 15 3. Incomplete
primary (K1-6)
11. Graduate degree
Son 4 Parents’ sibling 16 4. Complete primary
(K1-6)
12. Post graduate
Daughter 5 Niece 17 5. Incomplete
secondary (G7-
G9)
13. Incomplete
technical/vocational
Father 6 Nephew 18 6. Complete
secondary (G7-
G9)
14. Complete
technical/vocational
Mother 7 In-law 19 7. Incomplete high
(G10-G12)
15. Do not meet the
minimum age to attend
school
Grandfather 8 Other relatives 20 8. Complete high
(G10-G12)
77. Don’t know
Grandmother 9 Family’s friend 21 66. Refuse
Brother 10 Household’s 
employee
22 
Sister 11 Don’t know 77 
1st cousin 12 Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Note to DP: Respondent number here must be code 1, 2, or 3 chosen in the question about 
relationship to head of household. 
Q 4b Respondent number {RESPNUM}
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 45
Section 3: Income and Assets 
Note to DP: if code 18 and/or code 19 are chosen, please skip the section asking about its amount 
and continue asking other sources of income. 
Q 5 
What are the top 3 sources of income for the household to maintain its needs?
(This question refers to average income each month in the past 12 months of the household member)
Line No.
[Multiple Answers – up to 3 or less 
than 3]
Source of Income
[Use code]
What are the gross earnings/month the household 
receives from this source?
(Note: It is the total revenue minus cost of goods 
sold)
[Record amount]
77 Don’t know
66 Refuse
99 Not applicable
{INCSOURCE} {INCEARNINGS} 
1 USD
2 USD
3 USD
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 46
Source of income code:
Code: for 
{INCCODE}
Fishing 1 
Forest Forager/Resin Collector 2 
Farming 3 
Agricultural/Fishing Wage Laborer 4 
Security Guard 5 
Non-Agricultural/Non-Fishing Manual Worker/Laborer (e.g. construction, stone 
cutting, mine) 6 
Private Sector Employee, not requiring higher education (e.g. clerk, restaurant 
server, factory worker) 7 
Private Sector Employee with higher education (education level above high 
school) 8 
Skilled Professional, requiring higher education (e.g. doctor, teacher, engineer) 9 
Entrepreneur/Personal Business (small/large) 10 
Mechanic 11 
Driver 12 
Carpenter 13 
Religious 14 
Salaried employment in commune government 15 
Salaried employment in provincial government 16 
Other salaried employment in government 17 
Overseas workers’ remittances 18 
Domestic workers’ remittances 19 
Employment with NGO 20 
Occasional labor provided to private sector (skilled labor) 21 
Occasional labor provided to government 22 
Artist (e.g. sculpting, painting, wood carving) 23 
Armed Police/Military 24 
Police 25 
Student 26 
Housekeeper (for pay) 27 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Other [please specify] __________________ 96 
Q 6a {IDPOOR} [Single Answer]
Does your household receive benefits from ID Poor?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t have ID Poor 3 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 47
Q 6b {BENFIT} [Multiple Answer]
Of the following, from which source does your household receive monetary benefit?
Q 6c {BENAMOUNT} [Single Answer]
If any, approximately how much does your household receive each month in benefit, in the past 12 
months?
Q 7a {REMIT} [Single Answer]
Does your household receive remittances?
(Note: receive in both foreign and domestic remittances)
Q 7b {REMITAMOUNT} [Single Answer]
If any, how much does your household receive in foreign and domestic remittances each month in the 
past 12 months?
USD
Pension fund 1 
Support from NGO 2 
Sponsorship 3 
Other (specify _______________) 96 
None 88 skip to Q7a
Don’t know 77 skip to Q7a
Refuse 66 skip to Q7a
Not applicable 99 skip to Q7a
Amount
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
No 1 skip to Q8b Logic note for DP: if code 18 and/or 19 
were chosen in Q4 please hide code 1 
“No” in Q7a 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q8b
Refuse 66 skip to Q8b
Not applicable 99 skip to Q8b
Total amount
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 48
Q 8a {REMITSOURCE} [Multiple Answers]
Where do these remittances come from?
Source Code Source Code
Phnom Penh 1 Kuwait 16 
Other areas in Cambodia 2 Qatar 17 
Thailand 3 Saudi Arabia 18 
Vietnam 4 UAE 19 
Malaysia 5 Bahrain 20 
Singapore 6 Israel 21 
Brunei 7 Lebanon 22 
The Philippines 8 Jordan 23 
Indonesia 9 Africa 24 
Hong Kong 10 Europe 25 
Japan 11 United States of America 26 
Taiwan 12 Canada 27 
China 13 Other (specify) __________ 96 
South Korea 14 Don’t know 77 
Australia and New Zealand 15 Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 8b [Single Answer]
In the past 12 months, how much money does your household member receive each month from all 
sources combined?
The total amount in this Q8b must be greater or equal to the total amount of Q5, Q6c, Q7b
Record the amount USD
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 49
Q 10 {ASSET} [Show card] [Multiple Answers]
Now we would like to ask you about your household assets
Does your household have/own 
the following: Code:
No Yes Don’t know Refuse Not applicable
A radio 1 2 77 66 99 
A television 1 2 77 66 99 
A cellular phone 1 2 77 66 99 
A refrigerator/freezer 1 2 77 66 99 
A gas stove/gas range 1 2 77 66 99 
A bicycle/pedicab 1 2 77 66 99 
A motorcycle/tricycle 1 2 77 66 99 
Car or 4-wheel motorized 
vehicle
1 2 77 66 99 
Refuse 66 
Q 11 {ASSETAMT} [Single Answer]
If you are to sell all your household assets, how much do you think you would receive in total?
For example, selling everything that you own – including any houses/land that you own, livestock, a radio, 
television, stove, refrigerator, washing machine, bicycle, motorcycle, car, and any other belongings that 
you own.
USD
Section 4: Help from Politicians 
Now we would like to know about how easy or difficult it is for a household like yours to receive services 
and assistance from the government. 
Q 12a {SERVICERQST} [Flashcard] [Multiple Answer]
First, we would like to show you some flashcards with some examples of services that households like 
yours might request from the government. Have you or anyone in your household requested the 
following from the government?
[Have the respondent split the flashcards into two piles: things that they’ve attempted to request and things 
that they haven’t.]
Record the amount
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 50
Q 12b {SERVICEEASE} [show card] [Single Answer per row]
[Take the pile of flashcards that they’ve previously attempted to request] 
For the service and assistance that you’ve previously attempted to request, can you let us know on a scale 
of 1 to 10 (where 1 means you were unable to obtain the requested item and 10 means that it was very 
easy to obtain), how easy or difficult was it to obtain? 
[Note: Attempt to request refers to request and get it or don’t get it or about to request but give up due to 
some reasons]
Q 12c {SERVICECONF} [show card] [Single Answer per row]
[Take the pile of flashcards that they’ve not previously attempted to request] 
For the service and assistance that you’ve not previously attempted to request, can you let us know on a 
scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means that you don’t think you would be able to get the requested item and 10 
means that you think it would be very easy to obtain, can you please the flashcards on the scale to 
indicate how confident you are about your household’s ability to get the following:
[Note: not previously attempted to request refers to never think of requesting]
Services and assistance 
from the government
Q12a Q12b & Q12c
No Yes
 Don’t 
know Refuse Not 
applicable Not 
Attempt Attempt
1 
1. Endorsement letter
from the village chief
for employment
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
2 
2. Assistance from
village chief in
borrowing money
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
3 
3. Endorsement letter
from the district
governor for
employment
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
4 
4. Assistance
purchasing or
registering land with
district governor
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
5 5. Business permit 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
6 6. Land registration 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
7 7. Khmer Identity Card 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
8 8. Voter ID/Registration 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
9 
9. Vehicle
Registration/License
Plates
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 51
Services and assistance 
from the government
Q12a Q12b & Q12c
No Yes
 Don’t 
know Refuse Not 
applicable Not 
Attempt Attempt
10 
10. Registering a birth
with the district quarter
or village (sangha or
phum)
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
11 
11. Obtaining death
certificate from the
district quarter or
village (sangha or
phum)
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
77 Don’t know skip to Q13
66 Refuse skip to Q13
99 Not applicable skip to Q13
Q 13 [Multiple Answers] [Show card]
What projects and programs have been done or are in progress in your commune (khum) over the past 3 
years? 
This can include any activity which is undertaken by the government, NGOs, or the community such as festivals, 
new or improved facilities, services or infrastructure, or support programs for some households.
No. Sector Source of Funds
{PROJSECTOR} {PROJFUNDS}
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
In order to skip to the next question, please click ‘Don’t know’ if the respondent knows less than 5 
projects/programs. 
Type of project or program code
Sector for 
{PROJSECTOR}
Public Health Services 1 
Public Education Services 2 
Cash or In-Kind Transfer for Emergency/Needy 
(Household Emergencies) 3 
Water and Sanitation Infrastructure 4 
Road Construction and Rehabilitation 5 
Construction of Community Facilities (e.g. 
municipal halls, basketball courts) 6 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 52
Type of project or program code
Business Loans and Private Economic 
Development Programs (Economic Programs) 7 
This will not include MFIs or Banks unless 
the MFI/Bank is being given funds by the 
government/NGO/IFI for this purpose
Agricultural Assistance/Irrigation Systems 8 
Peace and Security 9 
Community Events/Festivals/Fiestas 10 
Others, please specify __________ 96 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q14
Refuse 66 skip to Q14
Not applicable 99 skip to Q14
Source of fund code (one main source only):
Source of 
funds for 
{PROJFUNDS}
Member of Commune Council 1 
District Government 2 
Provincial Government 3 
National Government 4 
Other Government Agencies 5 
Charity 6 
NGO 7 
IFI (World Bank, USAID, UN) 8 
Others, please specify _______________ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Section 5: Distance and Ease of Travel to Facilities 
Q 14 [Show card] [Single Answer per row]
What is the main (dominant) mode of transportation that the household uses/has used/would use to 
reach [facility name]?
If respondent hasn’t been to any following facilities by him/herself, please ask respondent to guess about 
how most of people in her region travel to those facilities.
[In the case of Primary School, if the child is too young to walk]
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 53
Q 15 [Single Answer per row]
How long would it take you to get to the facility (in minutes)?
No. Facility Q14 
{TRANSMODE}
Q15 
{TRANSTIME}
Record 
minutes Don’t know Refuse Not 
applicable
1 Health Post ___ minutes 77 66 99 
2 Provincial Health Centre ___ minutes 77 66 99 
3 Day Care Centre ___ minutes 77 66 99 
4 Elementary School ___ minutes 77 66 99 
5 Village Centre ___ minutes 77 66 99 
Mode of transportation code:
Main mode of 
transportation for 
{TRANSMODE}
Walk 1 Motorcyle 7 
Horse/Cow/Buffalo 2 Tuk Tuk 8 
Bicycle 3 Hand tractor/Three wheels tractor 9 
Bus 4 Others, please specify ________ 96 
Taxi 5 Don’t know 77 
Own vehicle 6 Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 16 {ROADTIME} [Please record minutes in number]
For this question, I am going to ask you about a road. It is not important whether the road is dirt, asphalt, 
or some other material. It only matters that the road is at least as wide as a car. How long (in minutes) 
does it take to walk from your house to the nearest road that is at least as wide as a car?
Put “0” if less than 1 minute
Q 17 {ROADTYPE} [Single Answer]
What type of road is the nearest road to your house?
Dirt Road 1 
Gravel 2 
Asphalt 3 
Concrete 4 
Others, please specify _______________ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Record minutes
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 54
Section 6: Household Political Activism and Knowledge 
Q 18 [Multiple Answers] [Show card]
If any, is there any person in your household with a position in the government office? 
Q 19
Who is this person in your house? [Multiple Answers] [Show 
card]
Q 20 [Single Answer] [Show card]
What is the highest elected office ever held by this member?
Q 21 [Single Answer] [Show card]
What is the highest appointed office ever held by this member?
No. Q19 
{MEMBCODE}
Q20 
{HIGHESTOFFICE}
Q21 
{HIGHESTAPPT}
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
Code
Him/Herself 1 Grandmother 9 Niece 17 
Husband 2 Brother 10 Nephew 18 
Wife 3 Sister 11 In-law 19 
Son 4 1st cousin 12 Other relatives 20 
Daughter 5 2nd cousin 13 Household’s 
employee
22 
Father 6 3rd cousin 14 Don’t know 77 skip to Q22
Mother 7 Grandchildren 15 Refuse 66 skip to Q22
Grandfather 8 Parents’ sibling 16 Not applicable 99 skip to Q22
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 55
Highest office 
held: for 
{HIGHESTOFFICE}
and 
{HIGHESTAPPT}
Commune councilor 1 Provincial Police Officer 10 
Mayor or village chief 2 Member of Parliament 11 
District Governor 3 Senator 12 
District Deputy Governor 4 Provincial Governor 13 
Member of District 
Government 5 Provincial Deputy Governor 14 
Member of Provincial 
General Secretariat 6 Member of Provincial Cabinet 15 
Provincial Budget 
Officer/Treasurer/Accountant 7 National Cabinet Minister 16 
Provincial Engineer
8 
Other selected or appointed 
position on a government 
executive, legislative, or law 
enforcing body
17 
Provincial Health or 
Education Officer 9 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 22 [Show card] [Single Answer per row]
People learn what is going on in this country and the world from various sources. For each of the 
following sources, indicate whether you use it to obtain information daily, weekly, monthly, less than 
monthly, or never in the last 12 months. 
No. Source information Frequency of use
{NEWSFRQ}
1 Daily newspaper
2 Printed magazines
3 TV news
4 Radio news
5 Mobile phone
6 Email
7 Social Media/Facebook
8 Talk with friends or colleagues
Code for 
Frequency 
of use
Daily 1 
Weekly 2 
Monthly 3 
Less than monthly 4 
Never 5 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 56
Q 23 {CONTACTNUMB}
Approximately how many contacts do you have in your phone?
Number of contacts [Please record number]
Don’t know 77 skip to Q25
Refuse 66 skip to Q25
Not applicable 99 skip to Q25
Q 24 {CONTACTCMNE}
Approximately how many of those people live in this commune?
Number of people [Please record number]
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 25 
Group Membership: How would you describe your membership of a {organization}? Are you currently a 
member, not currently a member, or a former member? 
[Show card] [Single Answer per row]
No. Group
{GROUPMEMB}
Former 
member
Don’t 
know Refuse Not 
applicable
Currently 
a 
member
Not 
currently a 
member
1 Union, farmers’ association, 
or other 
professional/business 
association
1 2 3 77 66 99 
2 Credit Union/Microfinance 
Collective including Saving 
Group, Borrowing Group, 
Microfinance, Bank
1 2 3 77 66 99 
3 Non-Government 
Organization (NGO)
1 2 3 77 66 99 
4 Skills/Trade Training 
Cooperative 
1 2 3 77 66 99 
5 Church/Religious group 1 2 3 77 66 99 
6 Sports and Recreation Club 1 2 3 77 66 99 
7 Village Government 1 2 3 77 66 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 57
Q 26 {POLITPARTY} [Single Answer]
Are you a member of a political party?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not 
applicable
99 
Q 28 {VILLAGEMTG} [Single Answer]
Does your commune hold village meetings?
No 1 skip to Q31
Yes 2 If yes, continue to Q29
Don’t know 77 skip to Q31
Refuse 66 skip to Q31
Not 
applicable
99 skip to Q31
Q 29 {ATTENDMTG} [Single Answer]
Over the past 6 months, did you or a member of your household attend any village meetings?
No 1 skip to Q31
Yes 2 If yes, continue to Q29
Don’t know 77 skip to Q31
Refuse 66 skip to Q31
Not 
applicable
99 skip to Q31
Q 30 {SPOKEMTG} [Single Answer]
Have you, at least once, spoken up during a village meeting in the last 6 months?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not 
applicable
99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 58
Q 31 {RELIGIONFRQ} [Single Answer]
How often do you attend religious services?
[Note: do not include funeral, wedding, and house warming parties or other kinds of parties]
Does not attend 1 skip to Q33
Less than once a 
month
2 
Once a month 3 
Twice a month 4 
Weekly 5 
Daily 6 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q33
Refuse 66 skip to Q33
Not applicable 99 skip to Q33
Q 32 {RELIGION} [Multiple Answers]
What religion or denomination do you go to for religious services?
Buddhism, unspecified 1 
Theravada Buddhism 2 
Shaivism 3 
Vaishnavism 4 
Islam 5 
Christianity 6 
Hinduism 7 
Judaism 8 
Other, please specify ________________ 9 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 33 [Single Answer]
Can you identify yourself as {Ethnic Group}? 
Khmer 1 
Indigenous minority 2 
Other (specify ________________) 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 59
Q 34 {VOLUNTEER} [Single Answer]
Over the past 6 months, did you or a member of your household do any volunteer work with a local 
community organization?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 35 {CONTACTPOLIT} [Show card] [Single Answer per row]
Contact with Politicians and Government Officials:
Have you contacted this person in the last year?
(Note: Contact includes all communication for business or personal reasons and includes all normal methods 
such as email, SMS, phone calls, and in-person visits.)
Politician or Government 
Official No Yes Don’t know Refuse Not 
applicable
1 Village Chief 1 2 77 66 99 
2 Member of Commune Council 1 2 77 66 99 
3 Member of District 
Government 1 2 77 66 99 
4 District Governor 1 2 77 66 99 
5 Member of 
Provincial/Municipal 
Government
1 2 77 66 99 
6 Provincial Governor 1 2 77 66 99 
Political Knowledge:
Q 36 {COUNCILTOTAL} [Single Answer]
How many members are on your commune council?
Record number of members ______ members
Don’t know 77 If code 77/66/99 is chosen please 
skip the verification section and 
continue to the next question
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Verification (for enumerator only)
(Please choose code 2 if the answer is correct and code 1 if the answer is incorrect)
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 60
Q 38 {COUNCILELECT} [Record number]
When was the first election for commune council?
Year
Don’t know 77 If code 77/66/99 is chosen please 
skip the verification section and 
continue to the next question
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Verification (for enumerator only)
(Please choose code 2 if the answer is correct and code 1 if the answer is incorrect)
Q 39 {GOVERNORNAME} [Single Answer]
What is the name of your district governor?
Name of district governor
Don’t know 77 If code 77/66/99 is chosen please 
skip the verification section and 
continue to the next question
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Verification (for enumerator only)
(Please choose code 2 if the answer is correct and code 1 if the answer is incorrect)
Q 41 {FAIRNESS} [Single Answer] [Show card]
Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got a chance, or would they try to be 
fair? 
Please show your response on this card, where 1 means that “people would try to take advantage of you”
and 10 means that “people would try to be fair” (code 1 number) 
People would try 
to take advantage 
of you

People 
would try 
to be fair
Don’t 
know Refuse Not 
applicable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
Q 42 {TRUST} [Single Answer]
Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in 
dealing with people? (Code 1 answer) 
Most people can be trusted 1 
Need to be very careful 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 61
Q 43 
Can you identify at least 3 parties that you have heard of before? {PARTY}
Party 1
Party 2
Party 3
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 44a {SOCIALRANK} [Photo cards]
I will read to you a list of various social issues that are depicted in these flashcards. While these issues can
all be considered important, we would like for you to rank them in terms of which ones you think are
more important for you and your family. In other words, if it were up to you to decide which of these 
social issues the government should focus on, how would you prioritize them? Please arrange the
flashcards so that the first one is the issue that you would like to prioritize the most, and the last one is 
the one that you would like to prioritize the least. For this, you will only need to rank the 5 issues that are 
most important for you and your family. There is no right or wrong answer, and we realize that 
sometimes issues can be equally important, so all we are asking is for you to try you best. 
[NOTE THAT THIS IS A RANKING FROM 1-5, WHERE 1 IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AND 5 THE LEAST
IMPORTANT. THIS IS NOT A 1-5 SCALE.]
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 62
Social Issue Rank 
Land Rights
Fair Elections
Food Prices
Peace and Security
Women’s Rights
Anti-Graft and Corruption
Environmental Conservation
Job Generation (Employment)
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 44b
Earlier we asked you about which political parties you have heard of or are most familiar with, and we just 
now asked you how you would prioritize these five social issues according to what’s important to you and 
your family. Now we would like to ask you how you think the three parties you identified would prioritize 
these same social issues.
I’ll remind you about the various social issues that are depicted in these flashcards. For each of the parties 
you identified, we would like to find out your opinion of how the party would rank these issues in terms of 
what is important to them. In other words, earlier we asked you how to rank these issues if it were up to 
you to decide what the government should focus on, and now we would like to know what you think the 
different parties would prioritize if it were up to them to choose. For each party, please arrange the 
flashcards so that the first one is the issue that you think the party would like to prioritize the most, and 
the last one is the one that you think the party would like to prioritize the least. For this, you will only 
need to rank the 5 issues that are most important for you and your family. And don’t worry if you’re not 
certain, again, there is no right or wrong answer, and you’ll have an opportunity afterwards to let us know 
which ones you were unsure of.*
[NOTE THAT THIS IS A RANKING FROM 1-5, WHERE 1 IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AND 5 THE LEAST 
IMPORTANT. THIS IS NOT A 1-5 SCALE.]
Social Issue {Party1_Socialrank}
Party 1
{Party2_Socialrank}
Party 2
{Party3_Socialrank}
Party 3
Land Rights
Fair Elections
Food prices
Peace and Security
Women’s rights
Anti-graft and corruption
Environmental Conservation
Job Generation (Employment)
Don’t know 77 77 77
Refuse 66 66 66
Not applicable 99 99 99
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 63
Q 44c {Party_Socialrate} [Single answer per row]
Now we’d like to ask you about how certain you are about the rankings that you just did for each party. It 
is very difficult to make these kinds of assessments, so it is understandable if you are not entirely sure. We 
realize we asked you to do something very difficult for someone to get completely correct, so now we’d 
like to get an idea of how sure or unsure you are about your allocation.
For the allocation that you have here in front of you for each party, could you let us know, whether you 
are very uncertain, uncertain, fairly certain, or very certain about your assessment.
1 = Very uncertain 2 = Somewhat Uncertain 3 = Somewhat certain 4 = Very certain
Very 
uncertain
Somewhat 
Uncertain
Fairly 
Certain
Very 
Certain
Don’t 
know
Refuse Not 
applicable
Party 1 1 2 3 4 77 66 99 
Party 2 1 2 3 4 77 66 99 
Party 3 1 2 3 4 77 66 99 
Section 7: Delivery of Services
Q 45a [Flashcards and Tokens] [Multiple Answers]
We know that all governments have to make difficult decisions about what types of goods and services to 
provide. In your opinion, which of the following sectors are most important to you and your family and 
should be given more priority for the commune? If it were up to you to decide how the government 
allocates money for your province, which types of projects and programs would you choose? 
We are going to give you 20 tokens to represent an entire government budget for your province. You can 
allocate you tokens any way that you want and you do not need to specify an amount for each sector – 
you can even put all of your tokens on just one sector if you want. Feel free also to move your tokens 
around while you are deciding. Once you’re satisfied with your allocation, we will record it.
NOTE: ENUMERATORS PROVIDE SECTOR WORKSHEET AND TOKENS
No. Sector # to allocate
{SECTORTOKEN}
1 1. Public Health Services (e.g. hospital/clinic/health station construction)
2 2. Public Education Services (e.g. school/classroom construction)
3 3. Cash or in-kind transfer/loans/job assistance for emergencies or for
individual needy households
4 4. Water and sanitation infrastructure
5 5. Road construction and rehabilitation
6 6. Construction of community facilities (e.g. multipurpose halls, basketball
courts)
7 7. Business loans and other private economic development programs
8 8. Agricultural assistance/irrigation systems
9 9. Peace and security
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 64
No. Sector # to allocate
{SECTORTOKEN}
10 10. Community events/festivals/fiestas
77 Don’t know
66 Refuse
99 Not applicable
Q 45b
We’ve already asked you how you would allocate a budget for your community according to your 
preferences. Now we would like to ask you how you think the three parties you identified will allocate the 
budget. We’ll give you [TWO or THREE] sets of different colored chips, now to indicate how much you 
think each of the parties would choose to allocate to that sector. We’ll start for each sector, and as always, 
after you’re finished, you can make any adjustments that you want. Once you’re satisfied with how you’ve 
allocated the chips for each candidate, we will record it. And don’t worry if you’re not certain, there is no 
right or wrong answer, and you’ll have an opportunity afterwards to let us know which ones you were 
unsure of.
No. Sector Party 1
{SECTOKENPT1}
Party 2
{SECTOKENPT2}
Party 3
{SECTOKENPT3}
1 
1.Public Health Services (e.g.,
hospital/clinic/health station
construction)
2 2.Public Education Services (e.g.,
school/classroom construction)
3 
3.Cash or in-kind
transfer/loans/job assistance for
emergencies or for individual needy
households
4 4.Water and sanitation
infrastructure
5 5.Road construction and
rehabilitation
6 
6.Construction of community
facilities (e.g., multipurpose halls,
basketball courts)
7 7.Business loans and other private
economic development programs
8 8.Agricultural assistance/irrigation
systems
9 9.Peace and security
10 10.Community
events/festivals/fiestas
77 Don’t Know
66 Refuse
99 Not applicable
Totals:
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 65
Q 45c
Now we’d like to ask you about how certain you are about the allocation that you just did. It is very 
difficult to make these kinds of assessments, so it is understandable if you are not entirely sure. We realize 
we asked you to do something very difficult that is nearly impossible for someone to get completely 
correct, so now we’d like to get an idea of how sure or unsure you are about your allocation.
For the allocation that you have here in front of you for each party, could you let us know, whether you 
are very uncertain, uncertain, fairly certain, or very certain about your assessment. 
{SECTORCERTAIN} [Single Answer for each row]
Very 
uncertain
Somewhat 
Uncertain
Fairly 
Certain
Very 
Certain
Don’t 
know
Refuse Not 
applicable
Party 1 1 2 3 4 77 66 99 
Party 2 1 2 3 4 77 66 99 
Party 3 1 2 3 4 77 66 99 
Section 8: Voting and Election 
We are now going to ask you some questions related to your experience and participation in the 2012 
elections. 
Q 47a {VOTED} [Single Answer]
Did you happen to vote in the last commune council election of 2012?
No 1 skip to Q51 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q51
Refuse 66 skip to Q51
Not applicable 99 skip to Q51
Q 47b {VOTEDHERE} [Single Answer]
Did you vote in this commune?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 66
Q 47c {VOTEDHOME} [Single Answer]
Did you vote in your home commune or commune of temporary/permanent residence?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 48 {VOTETIME} [Single Answer]
How long did you have to wait, from the time you arrived at the precinct to the time you were able to cast 
your vote?
[Note: record actual amount of time in minutes]
Record number minutes
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Vote Secrecy
Q 49a {VOTEKNOW} [Single Answer]
Do you think that your ________________ knows how you voted?
Q 49b {VOTEGUESS} [Single Answer]
Even if they can't find out how you voted, do you think they would be able to guess how you voted?
Q49a Q49b
No Yes Don't 
know Refuse N/A No Yes Don't 
know Refuse N/A
Spouse 1 2 77 66 99 1 2 77 66 99
Friends / neighbors 1 2 77 66 99 1 2 77 66 99
Employer 1 2 77 66 99 1 2 77 66 99
Elders (chas tum) 1 2 77 66 99 1 2 77 66 99
Commune Council 
members 1 2 77 66 99 1 2 77 66 99
Political parties/ 
politicians 1 2 77 66 99 1 2 77 66 99
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 67
Q 51 {NEARPOLLING} [Single Answer]
Did you see the following individuals or groups within sight of the polling station?
Note : both in the compound and outside the compound
No
. Person or Group
Saw these individuals near polling?
No Yes Don't 
know Refuse N/A
1 
Representatives of the 
parties (party officials, poll 
watchers, campaign workers)
1 2 77 66 99
2 Candidates 1 2 77 66 99
3 Policemen 1 2 77 66 99
4 Local Election Observers 
(e.g. COMFREL)
1 2 77 66 99
5 
International Election 
Observers (e.g. EU 
representatives)
1 2 77 66 99
6 Military personnel 1 2 77 66 99
7 Armed guards or bodyguards 
of candidates/parties
1 2 77 66 99
Q 52a {EVOTING} [Single Answer]
Did your precinct use electronic voting machines?
No 1 skip to Section 9
Yes 2 continue to Q52b
Don’t know 77 skip to Section 9
Refuse 66 skip to Section 9
Not applicable 99 skip to Section 9
Q 52b {MACHBREAK} [Single Answer]
Did any of your voting machines break down or malfunction?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 68
Section 9: Voting Influences 
Q 53 [Show card]
We’ll show you some flashcards with factors that commonly influence how people vote. When deciding 
who you will vote for, which of the following factors influences you the most? [Show worksheet with 1-5 
scale]. Here is a worksheet with a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not important and 5 is very important. 
Please place flashcards on the scale. 
[Single Answer per Row]
Not important

Very important
Don’t 
know Refuse Not 
applicable
a {FACTORFAM} Preferences of your family 
and friends 1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
b {FACTORPOLICY}
Whether candidates will 
focus commune policies on 
things that are important to 
me and my family 
1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
c {FACTORGIFT}
Gift or money from the 
candidates before the 
elections
1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
d {FACTORCONNECT}
The candidate’s ability to 
use political connections to 
get money and projects for 
the commune
1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
e {FACTORFEAR} Fear of reprisal from 
candidates 1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
f {FACTORHELP} Approachability or 
helpfulness of the candidate 1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
Section 10: Social Networks 
Q 56a {KNOWCOUNCIL} [Single Answer]
Do you know any of the members of the commune council personally?
[Clarify that this is a real relationship, not just that they know of the person or they know the person’s 
name; i.e. the person also has to know them]
No 1 skip to Q57a
Yes 2 continue to Q56b
Don’t know 77 skip to Q57a
Refuse 66 skip to Q57a
Not applicable 99 skip to Q57a
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 69
Q 56b {COUNCILNUMB} [Single Answer]
How many commune council members do you know?
1 1 
2 2 
3 3 
More: specify _______ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 57a {KNOWDIST} [Single Answer]
Do you know any district government officials personally?
[Clarify that this is a real relationship, not just that they know of the person or they know the person’s 
name; i.e. the person also has to know them]
No 1 skip to Q58
Yes 2 continue to Q57b
Don’t know 77 skip to Q58
Refuse 66 skip to Q58
Not applicable 99 skip to Q58
Q 57b {DISTNUMB} [Single Answer]
How many district government officials do you know?
1 1 
2 2 
3 3 
More: specify _______ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 58a {KNOWPROV} [Single Answer]
Do you know any provincial government officials personally?
[Clarify that this is a real relationship, not just that they know of the person or they know the person’s 
name; i.e. the person also has to know them]
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 70
No 1 skip to Q59a
Yes 2 continue to Q58b
Don’t know 77 skip to Q59a
Refuse 66 skip to Q59a
Not applicable 99 skip to Q59a
Q 58b {PROVNUMB} [Single Answer]
How many provincial government officials do you know?
1 1 
2 2 
3 3 
More: specify _______ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 60a {KNOWGOV} [Single Answer]
Do you know the district governor personally?
[Clarify that this is a real relationship, not just that they know of the person or they know the person’s 
name; i.e. the person also has to know them]
[IF code 66/77/99 in Q39, cannot code 2 in Q60a]
No 1 skip to Q61
Yes 2 continue to Q60b
Don’t know 77 skip to Q61
Refuse 66 skip to Q61
Not applicable 99 skip to Q61
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 71
Q 60b {KNOWGOVTYPE} [Multiple Answers]
How do you know the district governor?
skip to Q64a Himself / Herself 1 Former classmate 10 
Child 2 Business relationship 11 
Parent 3 Conversations at events 12 
Sibling 4 Family friend 13 
Cousin 5 Former colleague 14 
Grandchild 6 Member or former member of same 
club or organization as you 15 
Parent’s sibling 7 Relative 16 
Nibling (Nephew or 
Niece) 8 Other, please specify: ________ 96 
Grandparent 9 Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 61 {GOVOTHER} [Single Answer]
Do you know someone that knows the district governor personally?
No 1 skip to Q63
Yes 2 continue to Q62a & Q62b
Don’t know 77 skip to Q63
Refuse 66 skip to Q63
Not applicable 99 skip to Q63
Q 63 {OTHERNUMB} [Single Answer]
If you were to require a personal connection to the district governor, approximately how many people 
would you need to connect through before you are able to reach the district governor? For example, if 
you know someone who is a friend of the district governor’s relative, then you would need only to 
connect through two people before you reach the district governor. Note that you and the first person 
should know each other, the first and second person should know each other personally, all the way to 
the last person who should know the district governor personally. 
Record number Allow “0” as an answer
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 72
Q 64a {NUMBPEOPLEKHOW}
How many people's opinions do you respect when it comes to politics who live in this commune but do 
not live in your household?
Record number of people
Don't know 77 
Refused 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 64b
Of these [NUMBER OF PEOPLE NAMED IN Q64a] people whose opinions you respect, approximately how 
many are?
Relationship
RESP_RELATE_A
[Multiple answers]
Number of 
people
1 Family Member
2 Employer/Boss
3 Coworker/Business Partner
4 Religious Leader
5 Member of the Cooperative
6 Member of the Same Organization
7 Friend
8 Neighbor
9 Politician
77 Don't know skip to Q65
66 Refuse skip to Q65
99 Not applicable skip to Q65
Q 65 {FRIENDSCOMMUNE} [Multiple Answer]
Here we have a list of all the communes in the district. Can you let us know which communes you have 
friends and family in, excluding this commune? 
[Note: show the commune worksheet with names of all the communes in the district]
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Thank you very much for your participation 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 73
Enumerator Impressions (Do Not Ask Respondents – Questions for Enumerators)
NOTE: FOR ENUMERATORS ONLY
Q 68 {OTHERRESPONDENT} [Multiple Answers]
Who participated in the interview apart from the main respondent? 
Family Member (in the household) 1 
Family Member (outside the 
household)
2 
Friend/Neighbor 3 
None 88 
Others, please specify: ____________ 96 
Q 69 {RESPPROB} [Single Answer]
Did the interview have any problems that would affect the integrity of the questions? 
No problems 1 
Some problems 2 
Major problems 3 
Q 70 {RESPCLASS} [Single Answer]
What socioeconomic class is the respondent? 
Upper middle class 1 
Middle class 2 
Lower middle class 3 
Skilled working class 4 
Working class & lowest levels of subsistence 5 
Q 71 {RESPCOMPREH} [Single Answer]
How well did the respondent understand the survey questions? 
Extremely well 1 
Moderately well 2 
Somewhat well 3 
Slightly well 4 
Not well at all 5 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 74
Q 72 {RESPWILLING} [Single Answer]
How willing was the respondent in sharing information? 
Extremely willing 1 
Moderately willing 2 
Somewhat willing 3 
Slightly willing 4 
Not willing at all 5 
Q 73 {RESPCONC} [Single Answer]
Do you think the respondent was concentrating throughout the interview? 
Concentrated throughout 1 
Sometimes lost concentration 2 
Distracted throughout 3 
Q 74 {IVRSTU} [Single Answer]
Which of the following statements best describes the interview situation? 
Private location, only the respondent and I were present 1 skip to Q73
One or several people were present, but did not interrupt the 
interview 2 
One or several people were present, and did interrupt (e.g. talk to the 
respondent) the interview 3 
Q 75 {OTHPRESGEND} [Single Answer]
What gender were the other people present during the interview? 
Male only 1 
Female only 2 
Both male and female 3 
Q 76 {RESPCOMFORT} [Single Answer]
In answering the survey questions, how comfortable did the respondent seem to be? 
Extremely comfortable/at ease 1 
Moderately comfortable/at ease 2 
Somewhat comfortable/at ease 3 
Slightly comfortable/at ease 4 
Not comfortable at all/uneasy 5 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 75
Survey Instrument: Baseline Survey (Khmer)
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 76
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 77
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 78
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 80
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 81
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 82
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 83
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 84
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 85
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 86
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 87
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 88
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 89
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 90
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 91
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 92
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 93
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 94
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 95
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 96
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 97
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 98
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 99
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 100
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 101
 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 102
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 104
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 105
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 106
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 107
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 108
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 109
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 110
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 111
Survey Instrument: Midline Survey (English)
People’s Participation Survey
Questionnaire N {QUESTNUMB}: 
Date of interview {DATE}: 
Time of interview {TIME}: 
Length of interview {LENGTH}: 
Enumerator’s ID {ENUMID}: 
Enumerator’s name {ENUMERATOR}: 
Coordinator’s name {COORDINATOR}: 
Interview situation Done by Yes No Signature Date
Accompanied (FS) 1 2 
Logic Checked (FS) 1 2 
Logic Checked (QC indoor) 1 2 
Accompanied (QC) 1 2 
Tel Back Checked (QC) 1 2 
F2F Back Checked (QC) 1 2 
Data Processing (DP) 1 2 
Standard codes: 1 = No 2 = Yes 66 = Refuse
77 = Do not know 88 = None 99 = Not Applicable
CONFIDENTIALITY: The interviewer takes the responsibility in guarding the confidentiality of all the 
information generated through this instrument.
I am from Kantar Cambodia Limited, a Cambodian research firm, which is conducting a survey as part of 
USAID’s program intended to promote constructive civic engagement and participation of women and
youth in Cambodia.
Your participation in this survey is important because it is one of the few ways available for 
understanding the perspective of the Cambodian people on civic engagement. It is important to 
understand that this survey is for research and evaluation purposes only. Your participation will neither 
increase nor decrease the likelihood of your community’s participation in any USAID program. Your 
participation in this study does not involve any physical or emotional risk to you beyond that of 
everyday life.
The survey should take 45 to 60 minutes to complete. Your participation in this survey is voluntary. If 
you are unable or do not want to answer a question, you may decline, and you can end this interview at 
any time. All of your responses will be kept strictly confidential and will only be used in a statistical 
summary.
If you have any questions about the survey, please call 010 333 456 (Mr. Cheat Vuthynun, Supervisor) or 
012 520 603 (Mr. Phan Sothea, Associate Research Manager) so that we may assist you.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 112
{CONSENT} Are you willing to proceed?
No 1 End the interview
Yes 2 
At the end of this survey, we plan to save your contact information for 1 year and may contact you 
about participating in future parts of this study. Will you allow us to save your contact information and 
to contact you for participating in future parts of this study?
{CONSENT2} Are you willing to proceed?
No 1 End the interview 
Yes 2 
Section 1: Respondent information 
Address: Phum (Village): _____________________ {VILLAGE}
Khum (Commune): _____________________ {COMMUNE}
Srok (District): _____________________ {DISTRICT}
Khaet (Province): _____________________ {PROVINCE}
Given Name: _____________________ {GIVENNAME}
Family Name: _____________________ {FAMNAME}
Respondent’s phone number (if 
any): _____________________
Phone number of respondent’s 
relative or neighbor that we can 
contact: _____________________
(What is he/she to you 
____________________ )
Additional phone number of 
respondent’s relative or 
neighbor that we can contact: _____________________
(What is he/she to you 
____________________ )
Village Chief’s number: _____________________
(Enumerator has to contact 
supervisor to get the correct 
number)
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 113
Section 2: Household 
Q 1 {COMMUNEYRS} [Single Answer]
How many years have you lived in this commune?
If less than 1 year, please put 0
Number
Q 2 {HHNUMB} [Single Answer]
How many people reside in this household?
By ‘household’ I mean a group of people living daily in the same dwelling space and who eat 3 meals 
together.
Members (Household helpers and guests will be 
included if they have no other house or have 
been living with the household for 6 months or 
more)
Q 3a Now I am going to ask you about your household
Note to the interviewer: 
Condition 1: if all family members live together and head of household permanently lives in the household, 
then {ID1} must be head of household.
Condition 2: If the head of household is away or not living permanently at home, then please select code 2 
or 3 for {ID1}.
Line No.
Relationship to 
Household Head 
[use code]
[Single Answer]
Sex
[Record Age in year]
Age as of Last Birthday
77 Don’t know,
66 Refuse,
99 Not applicable
[Single 
Answer]
Education
[use code]
ID {RELATIONHHH} {SEX} {AGE}
Less than 1 year, put “0” {EDUC} Male Female
{ID1} 1 2 
{ID2} 1 2 
{ID3} 1 2 
Record number of year(s):
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Record number of members:
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 114
Line No.
Relationship to 
Household Head 
[use code]
[Single Answer]
Sex
[Record Age in year]
Age as of Last Birthday
77 Don’t know,
66 Refuse,
99 Not applicable
[Single 
Answer]
Education
[use code]
{ID4} 1 2 
{ID5} 1 2 
{ID6} 1 2 
{ID7} 1 2 
{ID8} 1 2 
{ID9} 1 2 
Code: Relationship to HH Head Code: Education
Head of 
Household
1 2nd cousin 13 1. No formal
schooling
9. Incomplete University
(Undergraduate)
Husband 2 3rd cousin 14 2. Kindergarten 10. Complete University
(Undergraduate)
Wife 3 Grandchildren 15 3. Incomplete
primary (K1-6)
11. Graduate degree
Son 4 Parents’ sibling 16 4. Complete primary
(K1-6)
12. Post graduate
Daughter 5 Niece 17 5. Incomplete
secondary (G7-
G9)
13. Incomplete
technical/vocational
Father 6 Nephew 18 6. Complete
secondary (G7-
G9)
14. Complete
technical/vocational
Mother 7 In-law 19 7. Incomplete high
(G10-G12)
15. Do not meet the
minimum age to attend
school
Grandfather 8 Other relatives 20 8. Complete high
(G10-G12)
77. Don’t know
Grandmother 9 Family’s friend 21 66. Refuse
Brother 10 Household’s 
employee
22 
Sister 11 Don’t know 77 
1st cousin 12 Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Note to DP: Respondent number here must be code 1, 2, or 3 chosen in the question about 
relationship to head of household. 
Q 3b Respondent number {RESPNUM}
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 115
Section 3: Income and Assets 
Note to DP: if code 18 and/or code 19 are chosen, please skip the section asking about its amount 
and continue asking other sources of income. 
Q 4 
What are the top 3 sources of income for the household to maintain its needs?
Note for the interviewer: For farmers, if they collect their yield, whether they sell it or not, please ask for the 
total income if they were to sell all the yield. Please probe for different kinds of crops. 
(This question refers to average income each month in the past 12 months of the household member)
Line No.
[Multiple Answers – up to 3 or less 
than 3]
Source of Income
[Use code]
What are the gross earnings/month the household 
receives from this source?
(Note: It is the total revenue minus cost of goods 
sold)
[Record amount]
77 Don’t know
66 Refuse
99 Not applicable
{INCSOURCE} {INCEARNINGS}
1 USD
2 USD
3 USD
Source of income code:
Code: for 
{INCCODE}
Fishing 1 
Forest Forager/Resin Collector 2 
Farming 3 
Agricultural/Fishing Wage Laborer 4 
Security Guard 5 
Non-Agricultural/Non-Fishing Manual Worker/Laborer (e.g. construction, 
stone cutting, mine) 6 
Private Sector Employee, not requiring higher education (e.g. clerk, 
restaurant server, factory worker) 7 
Private Sector Employee with higher education (education level above high 
school) 8 
Skilled Professional, requiring higher education (e.g. doctor, teacher, 
engineer) 9 
Entrepreneur/Personal Business (small/large) 10 
Mechanic 11 
Driver 12 
Carpenter 13 
Religious 14 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 116
Source of income code:
Salaried employment in commune government 15 
Salaried employment in provincial government 16 
Other salaried employment in government 17 
Overseas workers’ remittances 18 
Domestic workers’ remittances 19 
Employment with NGO 20 
Occasional labor provided to private sector (skilled labor) 21 
Occasional labor provided to government 22 
Artist (e.g. sculpting, painting, wood carving) 23 
Armed Police/Military 24 
Police 25 
Student 26 
Housekeeper (for pay) 27 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Other [please specify] __________________ 96 
Q 5 {IDPOOR} [Single Answer]
Does your household receive benefits from ID Poor?
Q 6a {BENFIT} [Multiple Answer]
Of the following, from which source does your household receive monetary benefit?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t have ID Poor 3 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Pension fund 1 
Support from NGO 2 
Sponsorship 3 
Other (specify _______________) 96 
None 88 skip to Q7a
Don’t know 77 skip to Q7a
Refuse 66 skip to Q7a
Not applicable 99 skip to Q7a
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 117
Q 6b {BENAMOUNT} [Single Answer]
If any, approximately how much does your household receive each month in benefit, in the past 12 
months?
Q 7a {REMIT} [Single Answer]
Does your household receive remittances?
(Note: receive in both foreign and domestic remittances)
Q 7b {REMITAMOUNT} [Single Answer]
If any, how much does your household receive in foreign and domestic remittances each month in the 
past 12 months?
USD
Q 8a {REMITSOURCE} [Multiple Answers]
Where do these remittances come from?
Source Code Source Code
Phnom Penh 1 Kuwait 16 
Other areas in Cambodia 2 Qatar 17 
Thailand 3 Saudi Arabia 18 
Vietnam 4 UAE 19 
Malaysia 5 Bahrain 20 
Singapore 6 Israel 21 
Brunei 7 Lebanon 22 
The Philippines 8 Jordan 23 
Indonesia 9 Africa 24 
Hong Kong 10 Europe 25 
Japan 11 United States of America 26 
Amount
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
No 1 skip to Q8b Logic note for DP: if code 18 and/or 19 
were chosen in Q4 please hide code 1 
“No” in Q7a 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q8b
Refuse 66 skip to Q8b
Not applicable 99 skip to Q8b
Total amount
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 118
Source Code Source Code
Taiwan 12 Canada 27 
China 13 Other (specify) __________ 96 
South Korea 14 Don’t know 77 
Australia and New Zealand 15 Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 8b {INCOMEALLSOURCE} [Single Answer]
In the past 12 months, how much money does your household member receive each month from all 
sources combined?
The total amount in this Q8b must be greater or equal to the total amount of Q4, Q6b, Q7b
USD
Q 9 {ASSET} [Show card] [Multiple Answers]
Now we would like to ask you about your household assets
Does your household have/own 
the following: Code:
No Yes Don’t know Refuse Not applicable
A radio 1 2 77 66 99 
A television 1 2 77 66 99 
A mobile phone 1 2 77 66 99 
A refrigerator/freezer 1 2 77 66 99 
A gas stove/gas range 1 2 77 66 99 
A bicycle/pedicab 1 2 77 66 99 
A motorcycle/tricycle 1 2 77 66 99 
Car or 4-wheel motorized 
vehicle
1 2 77 66 99 
Refuse 66 
Record the amount
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 119
Q 10 {ASSETAMT} [Single Answer]
If you are to sell all your household assets, how much do you think you would receive in total?
For example, selling everything that you own – including any houses/land that you own, livestock, a radio, 
television, stove, refrigerator, washing machine, bicycle, motorcycle, car, and any other belongings that 
you own.
USD
Section 4: Help from Politicians
Now we would like to know about how easy or difficult it is for a household like yours to receive services 
and assistance from the government. 
Q 11a {SERVICERQST} [Flashcard] [Multiple Answer]
First, we would like to show you some flashcards with some examples of services that households like 
yours might request from the government. Have you or anyone in your household requested the 
following from the government?
[Have the respondent split the flashcards into two piles: things that they’ve attempted to request and things 
that they haven’t.]
Q 11b {SERVICEEASE} [show card] [Single Answer per row]
[Take the pile of flashcards that they’ve previously attempted to request] 
For the service and assistance that you’ve previously attempted to request, can you let us know on a scale 
of 1 to 10 (where 1 means you were unable to obtain the requested item and 10 means that it was very 
easy to obtain), how easy or difficult was it to obtain? 
[Note: Attempt to request refers to request and get it or don’t get it or about to request but give up due to 
some reasons]
Q 11c {SERVICECONF} [show card] [Single Answer per row]
[Take the pile of flashcards that they’ve not previously attempted to request] 
For the service and assistance that you’ve not previously attempted to request, can you let us know on a 
scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means that you don’t think you would be able to get the requested item and 10 
means that you think it would be very easy to obtain, can you please the flashcards on the scale to 
indicate how confident you are about your household’s ability to get the following:
[Note: not previously attempted to request refers to never think of requesting]
Record the amount
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 120
Services and 
assistance from the 
government
Q11a Q11b & Q11c
No Yes
 Don’t 
know Refuse Not 
applicable Not 
Attempt Attempt
1 
1. Endorsement
letter from the
village chief for
employment
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
2 
2. Assistance from
village chief in
borrowing money
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
3 
3. Endorsement
letter from the
district governor for
employment
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
4 
4. Assistance
purchasing or
registering land
with district
governor
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
5 5. Business permit 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
6 6. Land registration 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
7 7. Khmer Identity
Card 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
8 8. Voter
ID/Registration 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
9 
9. Vehicle
Registration/License
Plates
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
10 
10. Registering a
birth with the
district quarter or
village (sangha or
phum)
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
11 
11. Obtaining death
certificate from the
district quarter or
village (sangha or
phum)
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
77 Don’t know skip to Q12
66 Refuse skip to Q12
99 Not applicable skip to Q12
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 121
Q 12 [Multiple Answers] [Show card]
What projects and programs have been done or are in progress in your commune (khum) over the past 3 
years? 
This can include any activity which is undertaken by the government, NGOs, or the community such as 
festivals, new or improved facilities, services or infrastructure, or support programs for some households. 
No. Sector Source of Funds
{PROJSECTOR} {PROJFUNDS}
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
In order to skip to the next question, please click ‘Don’t know’ if the respondent knows less than 5 
projects/programs. 
Type of project or program code
Sector for 
{PROJSECTOR}
Public Health Services 1 
Public Education Services 2 
Cash or In-Kind Transfer for Emergency/Needy 
(Household Emergencies) 3 
Water and Sanitation Infrastructure 4 
Road Construction and Rehabilitation 5 
Construction of Community Facilities (e.g. 
municipal halls, basketball courts) 6 
Business Loans and Private Economic 
Development Programs (Economic Programs) 7 
This will not include MFIs or Banks unless 
the MFI/Bank is being given funds by the 
government/NGO/IFI for this purpose
Agricultural Assistance/Irrigation Systems 8 
Peace and Security 9 
Community Events/Festivals/Fiestas 10 
Others, please specify __________ 96 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q13
Refuse 66 skip to Q13
Not applicable 99 skip to Q13
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 122
Source of fund code (one main source only):
Source of funds 
for 
{PROJFUNDS}
Member of Commune Council 1 
District Government 2 
Provincial Government 3 
National Government 4 
Other Government Agencies 5 
Charity 6 
NGO 7 
IFI (World Bank, USAID, UN) 8 
Others, please specify _______________ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Section 5: Distance and Ease of Travel to Facilities 
Q 13 [show card] [Single Answer per row]
What is the main (dominant) mode of transportation that the household uses/has used/would use to 
reach [facility name]?
If respondent hasn’t been to any following facilities by him/herself, please ask respondent to guess about 
how most of people in her region travel to those facilities.
[In the case of Primary School, if the child is too young to walk]
Q 14 [Single Answer per row]
How long would it take you to get to the facility (in minutes)?
No. Facility Q13 
{TRANSMODE}
Q14 
{TRANSTIME}
Record 
minutes Don’t know Refuse Not 
applicable
1 
Health post/private 
clinic where you go 
for basic care
___ minutes
77 66 99 
2 Referral Hospital ___ minutes 77 66 99 
3 
Day Care Center/Pre￾School/Parents’ or 
Relatives’ 
House/Place that you 
leave your kids to be 
taken care of when 
you go to work 
___ minutes
77 66 99 
4 Elementary School ___ minutes 77 66 99 
5 Village Centre ___ minutes 77 66 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 123
Mode of transportation code:
Main mode of 
transportation for 
{TRANSMODE}
Walk 1 Motorcyle 7 
Horse/Cow/Buffalo 2 Tuk Tuk 8 
Bicycle 3 
Hand 
tractor/Three 
wheels tractor
9 
Bus 4 Others, please 
specify ___________ 96 
Taxi 5 Don’t know 77 
Own vehicle 6 Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 15 {ROADTIME} [Please record minutes in number]
For this question, I am going to ask you about a road. It is not important whether the road is dirt, asphalt, 
or some other material. It only matters that the road is at least as wide as a car. How long (in minutes) 
does it take to walk from your house to the nearest road that is at least as wide as a car?
Put “0” if less than 1 minute
Q 16 {ROADTYPE} [Single Answer]
What type of road is the nearest road to your house?
Dirt Road 1 
Gravel 2 
Asphalt 3 
Concrete 4 
Others, please specify _______________ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Record minutes
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 124
Section 6: Household Political Activism and Knowledge 
Q 17a [Show card]
If any, is there any person in your household or other family member or relative that are not living in your 
household who has held a position in the government office? 
*** When asking Q17a, first please ask about all the members listed in the household roster in Q3a 
before asking about other family members or relatives that are not listed in the household roster. 
Q 17b Choose the ID from Household members list (Q3a) whether they are in household or not
Q 18 What is the highest office/position ever held by this member?
[Single Answer] [Show card]
Q 19 Is this member elected or appointed for this position? 
[Single Answer] [Show card]
No. Q17a 
{MEMBCODE}
Q17b 
{IDHHRTER}
Q18 
{HIGHESTOFFICE}
Q19 
{HIGHESTAPPT}
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 125
Household member code for Q17 (for MEMBCODE):
Head of 
Household 1 2nd cousin 13 
Husband 2 3rd cousin 14 
Wife 3 Grandchildren 15 
Son 4 Parents’ sibling 16 
Daughter 5 Niece 17 
Father 6 Nephew 18 
Mother 7 In-law 19 
Grandfather 8 Other relatives 20 
Grandmother 9 Family’s friend 21 
Brother 10 Household’s 
employee
22 
Sister 11 Don’t know 77 skip to Q20
1st cousin 12 Refuse 66 skip to Q20
Not applicable 99 skip to Q20
Code for Q19: Office held by 
member
Highest elected office 1 
Highest appointed office 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Code for highest 
office held for 
Q18 for 
{HIGHESTOFFICE}
and 
{HIGHESTAPPT}
Commune councilor 1 Provincial Police Officer 10 
Mayor or village chief 2 Member of Parliament 11 
District Governor 3 Senator 12 
District Deputy Governor 4 Provincial Governor 13 
Member of District 
Government 5 Provincial Deputy Governor 14 
Member of Provincial 
General Secretariat 6 Member of Provincial Cabinet 15 
Provincial Budget 
Officer/Treasurer/Accountant 7 National Cabinet Minister 16 
Provincial Engineer
8 
Other selected or appointed 
position on a government 
executive, legislative, or law 
enforcing body
17 
Provincial Health or 
Education Officer 9 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 126
Q 20 [Show card] [Single Answer per row]
People learn what is going on in this country and the world from various sources. For each of the 
following sources, indicate whether you use it to obtain information daily, weekly, monthly, less than 
monthly, or never in the last 12 months. This question refers to NEWS only. It does not count if 
respondents watch only TV series, ads, or other shows besides NEWS. 
No. Source information Frequency of use
{NEWSFRQ}
1 Daily newspaper
2 Printed magazines
3 TV news
4 Radio news
5 Mobile phone
6 Email
7 Social Media/Facebook
8 Talk with friends or colleagues
Code for 
Frequency 
of use
Daily 1 
Weekly 2 
Monthly 3 
Less than monthly 4 
Never 5 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 21 {CONTACTNUMB}
Approximately how many contacts do you have in your phone?
Phone Numbers/Contacts here refer to all the number recorded on phone and on other notes
Number of contacts [Please record number]
Don’t know 77 skip to Q23
Refuse 66 skip to Q23
Not applicable 99 skip to Q23 
Q 22 {CONTACTCMNE}
Approximately how many of those people live in this commune?
Number of people [Please record number]
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 127
Q 23 
Group Membership: How would you describe your membership of a {organization}? Are you currently a 
member, not currently a member, or a former member? 
[Show card] [Single Answer per row]
No. Group
{GROUPMEMB}
Former 
member
Don’t 
know Refuse Not 
applicable Currently a 
member
Not 
currently a 
member
1 Union, farmers’ 
association, or other 
professional/business 
association
1 2 3 77 66 99 
2 Credit 
Union/Microfinance 
Collective including 
Saving Group, 
Borrowing Group, 
Microfinance, Bank
1 2 3 77 66 99 
3 Non-Government 
Organization (NGO)
1 2 3 77 66 99 
4 Skills/Trade Training 
Cooperative 
1 2 3 77 66 99 
5 Church/Religious group 1 2 3 77 66 99 
6 Sports and Recreation 
Club
1 2 3 77 66 99 
7 Village Government 1 2 3 77 66 99 
Q 24 {VILLAGEMTG} [Single Answer]
Does your commune hold village meetings?
No 1 skip to Q27
Yes 2 If yes, continue to 
Q25 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q27
Refuse 66 skip to Q27
Not 
applicable
99 skip to Q27
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 128
Q 25 {ATTENDMTG} [Single Answer]
Over the past 6 months, did you or a member of your household attend any village meetings?
No 1 skip to Q27
Yes 2 If yes, continue to 
Q26 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q27
Refuse 66 skip to Q27
Not 
applicable
99 skip to Q27
Q 26 {SPOKEMTG} [Single Answer]
Have you, at least once, spoken up during a village meeting in the last 6 months?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not 
applicable
99 
Q 27 {RELIGIONFRQ} [Single Answer]
How often do you attend religious services?
[Note: do not include funeral, wedding, and house warming parties or other kinds of parties]
Does not attend 1 skip to Q29
Less than once a 
month
2 
Once a month 3 
Twice a month 4 
Weekly 5 
Daily 6 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q29
Refuse 66 skip to Q29
Not applicable 99 skip to Q29
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 129
Q 28 {RELIGION} [Multiple Answers]
What religion or denomination do you go to for religious services?
Buddhism, unspecified 1 
Theravada Buddhism 2 
Shaivism 3 
Vaishnavism 4 
Islam 5 
Christianity 6 
Hinduism 7 
Judaism 8 
Other, please specify ________________ 9 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 29 [Single Answer]
Can you identify yourself as {Ethnic Group}? 
Khmer 1 
Indigenous minority 2 
Other (specify ________________) 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 30 {VOLUNTEER} [Single Answer]
Over the past 6 months, did you or a member of your household do any volunteer work with a local 
community organization?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 31 {CONTACTPOLIT} [Show card] [Single Answer per row]
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 130 
Contact with Politicians and Government Officials:
Have you contacted this person in the last year?
(Note: Contact includes all communication for business or personal reasons and includes all normal methods 
such as email, SMS, phone calls, and in-person visits.)
Politician or Government 
Official No Yes Don’t know Refuse Not 
applicable
1 Village Chief 1 2 77 66 99 
2 Member of Commune Council 1 2 77 66 99 
3 Member of District 
Government 1 2 77 66 99 
4 District Governor 1 2 77 66 99 
5 Member of 
Provincial/Municipal 
Government
1 2 77 66 99 
6 Provincial Governor 1 2 77 66 99 
Political Knowledge
Q 32 {COUNCILTOTAL} [Single Answer]
How many members are on your commune council?
Record number of members ______ members
Don’t know 77 If code 77/66/99 is chosen please 
skip the verification section and 
continue to the next question
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Verification (for enumerator only)
(Please choose code 2 if the answer is correct and code 1 if the answer is incorrect)
Q 33 {COUNCILELECT} [Record number]
When was the first election for commune council?
Year
Don’t know 77 If code 77/66/99 is chosen please 
skip the verification section and 
continue to the next question
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Verification (for enumerator only)
(Please choose code 2 if the answer is correct and code 1 if the answer is incorrect)
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 131
Q 34 {GOVERNORNAME} [Single Answer]
What is the name of your district governor?
Name of district governor
Don’t know 77 If code 77/66/99 is chosen please 
skip the verification section and 
continue to the next question
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Verification (for enumerator only)
(Please choose code 2 if the answer is correct and code 1 if the answer is incorrect)
Q 35 {FAIRNESS} [Single Answer] [Show card]
Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got a chance, or would they try to be 
fair? 
Please show your response on this card, where 1 means that “people would try to take advantage of you” 
and 10 means that “people would try to be fair” (code 1 number) 
People 
would try 
to take 
advantage 
of you

People 
would 
try to 
be fair
Don’t 
know Refuse Not 
applicable
People you 
associate 
with 
(friends, 
family, 
associates)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
Other 
people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
Q 36 {TRUST} [Single Answer]
Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in 
dealing with people? (Code 1 answer) 
Most people can be trusted 1 
Need to be very careful 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 132
Q 37 {SOCIALRANK} [Photo cards]
I will read to you a list of various social issues that are depicted in these flashcards. While these issues can 
all be considered important, we would like for you to rank them in terms of which ones you think are 
more important for you and your family. In other words, if it were up to you to decide which of these 
social issues the government should focus on, how would you prioritize them? Please arrange the 
flashcards so that the first one is the issue that you would like to prioritize the most, and the last one is 
the one that you would like to prioritize the least. For this, you will only need to rank the 3 issues that are 
most important for you and your family. There is no right or wrong answer, and we realize that sometimes 
issues can be equally important, so all we are asking is for you to try you best. 
[NOTE THAT THIS IS A RANKING FROM 1-3, WHERE 1 IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AND 3 THE LEAST 
IMPORTANT. THIS IS NOT A 1-3 SCALE.] 
Social Issue Rank Don’t 
know Refuse Not 
applicable
Land Rights 77 66 99 
Fair Elections 77 66 99 
Food Prices 77 66 99 
Peace and Security 77 66 99 
Women’s Rights 77 66 99 
Anti-Graft and Corruption 77 66 99 
Environmental Conservation 77 66 99 
Job Generation (Employment) 77 66 99 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Section 7: Delivery of Services
Q 38 [Flashcards and Tokens] [Multiple Answers]
We know that all governments have to make difficult decisions about what types of goods and services to 
provide. In your opinion, which of the following sectors are most important to you and your family and 
should be given more priority for the commune? If it were up to you to decide how the government 
allocates money for your province, which types of projects and programs would you choose? 
We are going to give you 20 tokens to represent an entire government budget for your province. You can 
allocate you tokens any way that you want and you do not need to specify an amount for each sector – 
you can even put all of your tokens on just one sector if you want. Feel free also to move your tokens 
around while you are deciding. Once you’re satisfied with your allocation, we will record it.
Now, we are going to give you 20 tokens again, but this time please allocate them the way you think the 
government would allocate. 
NOTE: ENUMERATORS PROVIDE SECTOR WORKSHEET AND TOKENS
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 133
No. Sector You Government
{SECTORTOKEN}
1 1. Public Health Services (e.g. hospital/clinic/health
station construction)
2 2. Public Education Services (e.g. school/classroom
construction)
3 3. Cash or in-kind transfer/loans/job assistance for
emergencies or for individual needy households
4 4. Water and sanitation infrastructure
5 5. Road construction and rehabilitation
6 6. Construction of community facilities (e.g.
multipurpose halls, basketball courts)
7 7. Business loans and other private economic
development programs
8 8. Agricultural assistance/irrigation systems
9 9. Peace and security
10 10. Community events/festivals/fiestas
77 Don’t know
66 Refuse
99 Not applicable
We are now going to ask you some questions related to your experience and participation in the 2012 
elections. 
Q 39a {VOTED} [Single Answer]
Did you happen to vote in the last commune council election of 2012?
No 1 skip to Q42
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q42
Refuse 66 skip to Q42
Not applicable 99 skip to Q42
Q 39b {VOTEDHERE} [Single Answer]
Did you vote in this commune?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 134
Q 39c {VOTEDHOME} [Single Answer]
Did you vote in your home commune or commune of temporary/permanent residence?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 40 {VOTETIME} [Single Answer]
How long did you have to wait, from the time you arrived at the precinct to the time you were able to cast 
your vote?
[Note: record actual amount of time in minutes]
[Note to DP: the number must be shorter than 480 minutes]
Record number minutes
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 41a {EVOTING} [Single Answer]
Did your precinct use electronic voting machines?
No 1 skip to Q42
Yes 2 continue to 
Q41b 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q42
Refuse 66 skip to Q42
Not applicable 99 skip to Q42
Q 41b {MACHBREAK} [Single Answer]
Did any of your voting machines break down or malfunction?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 135
Section 9: Voting Influences 
Q 42 [Show card]
We’ll show you some flashcards with factors that commonly influence how people vote. When deciding 
who you will vote for, which of the following factors influences you the most? [Show worksheet with 1-5 
scale]. Here is a worksheet with a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not important and 5 is very important. 
Please place flashcards on the scale. 
[Single Answer per Row]
Not important

Very important
Don’t 
know Refuse Not 
applicable
a {FACTORFAM} Preferences of your 
family and friends 1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
b {FACTORPOLICY}
Whether candidates will 
focus commune policies 
on things that are 
important to me and my 
family 
1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
c {FACTORGIFT}
Gift or money from the 
candidates before the 
elections
1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
d {FACTORCONNECT}
The candidate’s ability 
to use political 
connections to get 
money and projects for 
the commune
1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
e {FACTORFEAR} Fear of reprisal from 
candidates 1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
f {FACTORHELP}
Approachability or 
helpfulness of the 
candidate
1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 136
Section 10: Social Networks 
Q 43a {KNOWCOUNCIL} [Single Answer]
Do you know any of the members of the commune council personally?
[Clarify that this is a real relationship, not just that they know of the person or they know the person’s 
name; i.e. the person also has to know them]
No 1 skip to Q44a
Yes 2 continue to Q43b
Don’t know 77 skip to Q44a
Refuse 66 skip to Q44a
Not applicable 99 skip to Q44a
Q 43b {COUNCILNUMB} [Single Answer]
How many commune council members do you know?
1 1 
2 2 
3 3 
More: specify _______ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 44a {KNOWDIST} [Single Answer]
Do you know any district government officials personally?
[Clarify that this is a real relationship, not just that they know of the person or they know the person’s 
name; i.e. the person also has to know them]
No 1 skip to Q45a
Yes 2 continue to Q44b
Don’t know 77 skip to Q45a
Refuse 66 skip to Q45a
Not applicable 99 skip to Q45a
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 137
Q 44b {DISTNUMB} [Single Answer]
How many district government officials do you know?
1 1 
2 2 
3 3 
More: specify _______ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 45a {KNOWPROV} [Single Answer]
Do you know any provincial government officials personally?
[Clarify that this is a real relationship, not just that they know of the person or they know the person’s 
name; i.e. the person also has to know them]
No 1 skip to Q46a
Yes 2 continue to Q45b
Don’t know 77 skip to Q46a
Refuse 66 skip to Q46a
Not applicable 99 skip to Q46a
Q 45b {PROVNUMB} [Single Answer]
How many provincial government officials do you know?
1 1 
2 2 
3 3 
More: specify _______ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 138
Q 46a {KNOWGOV} [Single Answer]
Do you know the district governor personally?
[Clarify that this is a real relationship, not just that they know of the person or they know the person’s 
name; i.e. the person also has to know them]
No 1 skip to Q47
Yes 2 continue to Q46b
Don’t know 77 skip to Q47
Refuse 66 skip to Q47
Not applicable 99 skip to Q47
Q 46b {KNOWGOVTYPE} [Multiple Answers]
How do you know the district governor?
skip to Q49a Himself / Herself 1 Former classmate 10 
Child 2 Business relationship 11 
Parent 3 Conversations at events 12 
Sibling 4 Family friend 13 
Cousin 5 Former colleague 14 
Grandchild
6 
Member or former member of 
same club or organization as 
you
15 
Parent’s sibling 7 Relative 16 
Nibling (Nephew or 
Niece) 8 Other, please specify: ________ 96 
Grandparent 9 Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 47 {GOVOTHER} [Single Answer]
Do you know someone that knows the district governor personally?
No 1 skip to Q48
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q48
Refuse 66 skip to Q48
Not applicable 99 skip to Q48
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 139
Q 48 {OTHERNUMB} [Single Answer]
If you were to require a personal connection to the district governor, approximately how many people 
would you need to connect through before you are able to reach the district governor? For example, if 
you know someone who is a friend of the district governor’s relative, then you would need only to 
connect through two people before you reach the district governor. Note that you and the first person 
should know each other, the first and second person should know each other personally, all the way to 
the last person who should know the district governor personally. 
Record number Allow “0” as an answer
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 49a {FRIENDSCOMMUNE} [Multiple Answer]
Here we have a list of all the communes in the district. Can you let us know which communes you have 
friends and family in, excluding this commune? 
[Note: show the commune worksheet with names of all the communes in the district]
Don’t know 77 skip to Q49b
Refuse 66 skip to Q49b
Not applicable 99 skip to Q49b
Q 49b {LASTINT} 
Did you ever participate in this survey before?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Thank you very much for your participation 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 140
Enumerator Impressions (Do Not Ask Respondents – Questions for Enumerators)
NOTE: FOR ENUMERATORS ONLY
Q 50 {OTHERRESPONDENT} [Multiple Answers]
Who participated in the interview apart from the main respondent? 
Family Member (in the household) 1 
Family Member (outside the 
household)
2 
Friend/Neighbor 3 
None 88 
Others, please specify: ____________ 96 
Q 51 {RESPPROB} [Single Answer]
Did the interview have any problems that would affect the integrity of the questions? 
No problems 1 
Some problems 2 
Major problems 3 
Q 52 {RESPCLASS} [Single Answer]
What socioeconomic class is the respondent? 
Upper middle class 1 
Middle class 2 
Lower middle class 3 
Skilled working class 4 
Working class & lowest levels of subsistence 5 
Q 53 {RESPCOMPREH} [Single Answer]
How well did the respondent understand the survey questions? 
Extremely well 1 
Moderately well 2 
Somewhat well 3 
Slightly well 4 
Not well at all 5 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 141
Q 54 {RESPWILLING} [Single Answer]
How willing was the respondent in sharing information? 
Extremely willing 1 
Moderately willing 2 
Somewhat willing 3 
Slightly willing 4 
Not willing at all 5 
Q 55 {RESPCONC} [Single Answer]
Do you think the respondent was concentrating throughout the interview? 
Concentrated throughout 1 
Sometimes lost concentration 2 
Distracted throughout 3 
Q 56 {IVRSTU} [Single Answer]
Which of the following statements best describes the interview situation? 
Private location, only the respondent and I were present 1 skip to Q58
One or several people were present, but did not interrupt the 
interview 2 
One or several people were present, and did interrupt (e.g. talk to the 
respondent) the interview 3 
Q 57 {OTHPRESGEND} [Single Answer]
What gender were the other people present during the interview? 
Male only 1 
Female only 2 
Both male and female 3 
Q 58 {RESPCOMFORT} [Single Answer]
In answering the survey questions, how comfortable did the respondent seem to be? 
Extremely comfortable/at ease 1 
Moderately comfortable/at ease 2 
Somewhat comfortable/at ease 3 
Slightly comfortable/at ease 4 
Not comfortable at all/uneasy 5 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 142
Survey Instrument: Midline Survey (Khmer)
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 143
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 144
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 145
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 146
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 147
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 148
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 149
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 150
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 151
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 152
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 153
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 154
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 155
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 156
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 157
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 158
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 159
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 160
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 161
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 162
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 163
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 164
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 165
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 166
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 167
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 168
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 169
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 170
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 171
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 172
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 173
Survey Instrument: Endline Survey (English)
People’s Participation Survey
Questionnaire N {QUESTNUMB}: _______________________
Date of interview {DATE}: 
Time of interview {TIME}: 
Length of interview {LENGTH}: 
Enumerator’s ID {ENUMID}: 
Enumerator’s name {ENUMERATOR}: 
Coordinator’s name {COORDINATOR}: 
Interview situation Done by Yes No Signature Date
Accompanied (FS) 1 2 
Logic Checked (FS) 1 2 
Logic Checked (QC indoor) 1 2 
Accompanied (QC) 1 2 
Tel Back Checked (QC) 1 2 
F2F Back Checked (QC) 1 2 
Data Processing (DP) 1 2 
Standard codes: 1 = No 2 = Yes 66 = Refuse
77 = Do not know 88 = None 99 = Not Applicable
CONFIDENTIALITY: The interviewer takes the responsibility in guarding the confidentiality of all the 
information generated through this instrument.
I am from Kantar Cambodia Limited, a Cambodian research firm, which is conducting a survey as part of 
USAID’s program intended to promote constructive civic engagement and participation of women and 
youth in Cambodia.
Your participation in this survey is important because it is one of the few ways available for 
understanding the perspective of the Cambodian people on civic engagement. It is important to 
understand that this survey is for research and evaluation purposes only. Your participation will neither 
increase nor decrease the likelihood of your community’s participation in any USAID program. Your 
participation in this study does not involve any physical or emotional risk to you beyond that of 
everyday life.
The survey should take 45 to 60 minutes to complete. Your participation in this survey is voluntary. If 
you are unable or do not want to answer a question, you may decline, and you can end this interview at 
any time. All of your responses will be kept strictly confidential and will only be used in a statistical 
summary.
If you have any questions about the survey, please call 010 333 456 (Mr. Cheat Vuthynun, Supervisor) or 
012 520 603 (Mr. Phan Sothea, Associate Research Manager) so that we may assist you.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 174
{CONSENT} Are you willing to proceed?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Section 1: Respondent information 
Address: Phum (Village): _____________________ {VILLAGE}
Khum (Commune): _____________________ {COMMUNE}
Srok (District): _____________________ {DISTRICT}
Khaet (Province): _____________________ {PROVINCE}
Given Name: _____________________ {GIVENNAME}
Family Name: _____________________ {FAMNAME}
Respondent’s phone number (if 
any): _____________________
Phone number of respondent’s 
relative or neighbor that we can 
contact: _____________________
(What is he/she to you 
____________________ )
Additional phone number of 
respondent’s relative or 
neighbor that we can contact: _____________________
(What is he/she to you 
____________________ )
Village Chief’s number: _____________________
(Enumerator has to contact 
supervisor to get the correct 
number)
Section 2: Household 
Q 1 {COMMUNEYRS} [Single Answer]
How many years have you lived in this commune?
If less than 1 year, please put 0
Number
Q 2 {HHNUMB} [Single Answer]
Record number of year(s):
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 175
How many people reside in this household?
By ‘household’ I mean a group of people living daily in the same dwelling space and who eat 3 meals 
together.
Members (Household helpers and guests will be 
included if they have no other house or have 
been living with the household for 6 months or 
more)
Q 3a Now I am going to ask you about your household
(1) The interviewer will describe the household roster to the respondent.
Read: Now I am going to ask you about your household. When you were interviewed before, you gave us
some information about each household member. I now want to confirm if these individuals are still in the
household or if they are no longer members of the household. After this, I will ask you if there are any other
individuals, beyond those that I have mentioned, that are members of your household currently. Please be
reinform you that ‘household’ here means a group of people living daily in the same dwelling space and who
eat 3 meals together. Are you clear about this definition?
(2) The interviewer will then describe each household member from the hard copy and record their
information in the tablet. They will also record whether the individual is still in the household or has left. The
answer should be recorded in the new question you have included.
(3) After completing all individuals on the hard copy, the interviewer will ask the respondent "Are any other
individuals, beyond those that I have mentioned, members of your household currently?" The enumerator
should probe to ensure that any other individuals that the respondent mentions match the definition of a
household member.
(4) The interviewer should then ask whether this individual was a houshold member 6 months ago, or
whether they are a new household member. Please use The answer should be recorded in the new question
you have included.
(5) New members of the household should receive a new unique ID and members of the household from the
midline should be given the same unique ID as was assigned to them in the midline.
Note to the interviewer: 
Condition 1: if all family members live together and head of household permanently lives in the household, 
then {ID1} must be head of household.
Condition 2: If the head of household is away or not living permanently at home, then please select code 2 
or 3 for {ID1}.
Record number of members:
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 176
Line No.
Relationship to 
Household Head 
[use code]
[Single Answer]
Sex
[Record Age in year]
Age as of Last Birthday
77 Don’t know,
66 Refuse,
99 Not applicable
[Single 
Answer]
Education
[use code]
ID {RELATIONHHH} {SEX} {AGE}
Less than 1 year, put “0” {EDUC} Male Female
{ID1} 1 2 
{ID2} 1 2 
{ID3} 1 2 
{ID4} 1 2 
{ID5} 1 2 
{ID6} 1 2 
{ID7} 1 2 
{ID8} 1 2 
{ID9} 1 2 
Code: Relationship to HH Head Code: Education
Head of 
Household
1 2nd cousin 13 1. No formal
schooling
9. Incomplete University
(Undergraduate)
Husband 2 3rd cousin 14 2. Kindergarten 10. Complete University
(Undergraduate)
Wife 3 Grandchildren 15 3. Incomplete
primary (K1-6)
11. Graduate degree
Son 4 Parents’ sibling 16 4. Complete primary
(K1-6)
12. Post graduate
Daughter 5 Niece 17 5. Incomplete
secondary (G7-
G9)
13. Incomplete
technical/vocational
Father 6 Nephew 18 6. Complete
secondary (G7-
G9)
14. Complete
technical/vocational
Mother 7 In-law 19 7. Incomplete high
(G10-G12)
15. Do not meet the
minimum age to attend
school
Grandfather 8 Other relatives 20 8. Complete high
(G10-G12)
77. Don’t know
Grandmother 9 Family’s friend 21 66. Refuse
Brother 10 Household’s 
employee
22 
Sister 11 Don’t know 77 
1st cousin 12 Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Note to DP: Respondent number here must be code 1, 2, or 3 chosen in the question about 
relationship to head of household. 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 177
Q 3b Respondent number {RESPNUM}
Section 3: Income and Assets 
Note to DP: if code 18 and/or code 19 are chosen, please skip the section asking about its amount 
and continue asking other sources of income. 
Q 4 
What are the top 3 sources of income for the household to maintain its needs?
Note for the interviewer: For farmers, if they collect their yield, whether they sell it or not, please ask for the 
total income if they were to sell all the yield. Please probe for different kinds of crops. 
(This question refers to average income each month in the past 12 months of the household member)
Line No.
[Multiple Answers – up to 3 or less 
than 3]
Source of Income
[Use code]
What are the gross earnings/month the household 
receives from this source?
(Note: It is the total revenue minus cost of goods 
sold)
[Record amount]
77 Don’t know
66 Refuse
99 Not applicable
{INCSOURCE} {INCEARNINGS}
1 USD
2 USD
3 USD
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 178
Source of income code:
Code: for 
{INCCODE}
Fishing 1 
Forest Forager/Resin Collector 2 
Farming 3 
Agricultural/Fishing Wage Laborer 4 
Security Guard 5 
Non-Agricultural/Non-Fishing Manual Worker/Laborer (e.g. construction, stone 
cutting, mine) 6 
Private Sector Employee, not requiring higher education (e.g. clerk, restaurant 
server, factory worker) 7 
Private Sector Employee with higher education (education level above high school) 8 
Skilled Professional, requiring higher education (e.g. doctor, teacher, engineer) 9 
Entrepreneur/Personal Business (small/large) 10 
Mechanic 11 
Driver 12 
Carpenter 13 
Religious 14 
Salaried employment in commune government 15 
Salaried employment in provincial government 16 
Other salaried employment in government 17 
Overseas workers’ remittances 18 
Domestic workers’ remittances 19 
Employment with NGO 20 
Occasional labor provided to private sector (skilled labor) 21 
Occasional labor provided to government 22 
Artist (e.g. sculpting, painting, wood carving) 23 
Armed Police/Military 24 
Police 25 
Student 26 
Housekeeper (for pay) 27 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Other [please specify] __________________ 96 
Q 5 {IDPOOR} [Single Answer]
Does your household receive benefits from ID Poor?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t have ID Poor 3 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 179
Q 6a {BENFIT} [Multiple Answer]
Of the following, from which source does your household receive monetary benefit?
Q 6b {BENAMOUNT} [Single Answer]
If any, approximately how much does your household receive each month in benefit, in the past 12 
months?
Q 7a {REMIT} [Single Answer]
Does your household receive remittances?
(Note: receive in both foreign and domestic remittances)
Q 7b {REMITAMOUNT} [Single Answer]
If any, how much does your household receive in foreign and domestic remittances each month in the 
past 12 months?
USD
Pension fund 1 
Support from NGO 2 
Sponsorship 3 
Other (specify _______________) 96 
None 88 skip to Q7a
Don’t know 77 skip to Q7a
Refuse 66 skip to Q7a
Not applicable 99 skip to Q7a
Amount
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
No 1 skip to Q8b Logic note for DP: if code 18 and/or 19 
were chosen in Q4 please hide code 1 
“No” in Q7a 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q8b
Refuse 66 skip to Q8b
Not applicable 99 skip to Q8b
Total amount
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 180
Q 8a {REMITSOURCE} [Multiple Answers]
Where do these remittances come from?
Source Code Source Code
Phnom Penh 1 Kuwait 16 
Other areas in Cambodia 2 Qatar 17 
Thailand 3 Saudi Arabia 18 
Vietnam 4 UAE 19 
Malaysia 5 Bahrain 20 
Singapore 6 Israel 21 
Brunei 7 Lebanon 22 
The Philippines 8 Jordan 23 
Indonesia 9 Africa 24 
Hong Kong 10 Europe 25 
Japan 11 United States of America 26 
Taiwan 12 Canada 27 
China 13 Other (specify) __________ 96 
South Korea 14 Don’t know 77 
Australia and New Zealand 15 Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 8b {INCOMEALLSOURCE} [Single Answer]
In the past 12 months, how much money does your household member receive each month from all 
sources combined?
The total amount in this Q8b must be greater or equal to the total amount of Q4, Q6b, Q7b
Record the amount USD
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 181
Q 9 {ASSET} [Show card] [Multiple Answers]
Now we would like to ask you about your household assets
Does your household have/own 
the following: Code:
No Yes Don’t know Refuse Not 
applicable
A radio 1 2 77 66 99 
A television 1 2 77 66 99 
A mobile phone 1 2 77 66 99 
A refrigerator/freezer 1 2 77 66 99 
A gas stove/gas range 1 2 77 66 99 
A bicycle/pedicab 1 2 77 66 99 
A motorcycle/tricycle 1 2 77 66 99 
Car or 4-wheel motorized 
vehicle
1 2 77 66 99 
Refuse 66 
Q 10 {ASSETAMT} [Single Answer]
If you are to sell all your household assets, how much do you think you would receive in total?
For example, selling everything that you own – including any houses/land that you own, livestock, a radio, 
television, stove, refrigerator, washing machine, bicycle, motorcycle, car, and any other belongings that 
you own.
USD
Section 4: Help from Politicians 
Now we would like to know about how easy or difficult it is for a household like yours to receive services 
and assistance from the government. 
Q 11a {SERVICERQST} [Flashcard] [Multiple Answer]
First, we would like to show you some flashcards with some examples of services that households like 
yours might request from the government. Have you or anyone in your household requested the 
following from the government?
[Have the respondent split the flashcards into two piles: things that they’ve attempted to request and things 
that they haven’t.]
Record the amount
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 182
Q 11b {SERVICEEASE} [show card] [Single Answer per row]
[Take the pile of flashcards that they’ve previously attempted to request] 
For the service and assistance that you’ve previously attempted to request, can you let us know on a scale 
of 1 to 10 (where 1 means you were unable to obtain the requested item and 10 means that it was very 
easy to obtain), how easy or difficult was it to obtain? 
[Note: Attempt to request refers to request and get it or don’t get it or about to request but give up due to 
some reasons]
Q 11c {SERVICECONF} [show card] [Single Answer per row]
[Take the pile of flashcards that they’ve not previously attempted to request] 
For the service and assistance that you’ve not previously attempted to request, can you let us know on a 
scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means that you don’t think you would be able to get the requested item and 10 
means that you think it would be very easy to obtain, can you please the flashcards on the scale to 
indicate how confident you are about your household’s ability to get the following:
[Note: not previously attempted to request refers to never think of requesting]
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 183
Services and 
assistance from the 
government
Q11a Q11b & Q11c
No Yes
 Don’t 
know Refuse Not 
applicable Not 
Attempt Attempt
1 
1. Endorsement
letter from the
village chief for
employment
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
2 
2. Assistance from
village chief in
borrowing money
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
3 
3. Endorsement
letter from the
district governor for
employment
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
4 
4. Assistance
purchasing or
registering land
with district
governor
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
5 5. Business permit 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
6 6. Land registration 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
7 7. Khmer Identity
Card 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
8 8. Voter
ID/Registration 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
9 
9. Vehicle
Registration/License
Plates
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
10 
10. Registering a
birth with the
district quarter or
village (sangha or
phum)
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
11 
11. Obtaining death
certificate from the
district quarter or
village (sangha or
phum)
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
77 Don’t know skip to Q12
66 Refuse skip to Q12
99 Not applicable skip to Q12
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 184
Q 12 [Multiple Answers] [Show card]
What projects and programs have been done or are in progress in your commune (khum) over the past 3 
years? 
This can include any activity which is undertaken by the government, NGOs, or the community such as 
festivals, new or improved facilities, services or infrastructure, or support programs for some households. 
No. Sector Source of Funds
{PROJSECTOR} {PROJFUNDS}
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
In order to skip to the next question, please click ‘Don’t know’ if the respondent knows less than 5 
projects/programs. 
Type of project or program code
Sector for 
{PROJSECTOR}
Public Health Services 1 
Public Education Services 2 
Cash or In-Kind Transfer for Emergency/Needy 
(Household Emergencies) 3 
Water and Sanitation Infrastructure 4 
Road Construction and Rehabilitation 5 
Construction of Community Facilities (e.g. 
municipal halls, basketball courts) 6 
Business Loans and Private Economic 
Development Programs (Economic Programs) 7 
This will not include MFIs or Banks unless 
the MFI/Bank is being given funds by the 
government/NGO/IFI for this purpose
Agricultural Assistance/Irrigation Systems 8 
Peace and Security 9 
Community Events/Festivals/Fiestas 10 
Others, please specify __________ 96 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q13
Refuse 66 skip to Q13
Not applicable 99 skip to Q13
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 185
Source of fund code (one main source only):
Source of funds 
for 
{PROJFUNDS}
Member of Commune Council 1 
District Government 2 
Provincial Government 3 
National Government 4 
Other Government Agencies 5 
Charity 6 
NGO 7 
IFI (World Bank, USAID, UN) 8 
Others, please specify _______________ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Section 5: Distance and Ease of Travel to Facilities 
Q 13 [show card] [Single Answer per row]
What is the main (dominant) mode of transportation that the household uses/has used/would use to 
reach [facility name]?
If respondent hasn’t been to any following facilities by him/herself, please ask respondent to guess about 
how most of people in her region travel to those facilities.
[In the case of Primary School, if the child is too young to walk]
Q 14 [Single Answer per row]
How long would it take you to get to the facility (in minutes)?
No. Facility Q13 
{TRANSMODE}
Q14 
{TRANSTIME}
Record 
minutes Don’t know Refuse Not 
applicable
1 
Health post/private 
clinic where you go 
for basic care
___ minutes
77 66 99 
2 Referral Hospital ___ minutes 77 66 99 
3 
Day Care Center/Pre￾School/Parents’ or 
Relatives’ 
House/Place that you 
leave your kids to be 
taken care of when 
you go to work
___ minutes
77 66 99 
4 Elementary School ___ minutes 77 66 99 
5 Village Centre ___ minutes 77 66 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 186
Mode of transportation code:
Main mode of 
transportation for 
{TRANSMODE}
Walk 1 Motorcyle 7 
Horse/Cow/Buffalo 2 Tuk Tuk 8 
Bicycle 3 
Hand 
tractor/Three 
wheels tractor
9 
Bus 4 Others, please 
specify ___________ 96 
Taxi 5 Don’t know 77 
Own vehicle 6 Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 15 {ROADTIME} [Please record minutes in number]
For this question, I am going to ask you about a road. It is not important whether the road is dirt, asphalt, 
or some other material. It only matters that the road is at least as wide as a car. How long (in minutes) 
does it take to walk from your house to the nearest road that is at least as wide as a car?
Put “0” if less than 1 minute
Q 16 {ROADTYPE} [Single Answer]
What type of road is the nearest road to your house?
Dirt Road 1 
Gravel 2 
Asphalt 3 
Concrete 4 
Others, please specify ________________ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Record minutes
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 187
Section 6: Household Political Activism and Knowledge 
Q 17a [Show card]
If any, is there any person in your household or other family member or relative that are not living in your 
household who has held a position in the government office? 
*** When asking Q17a, first please ask about all the members listed in the household roster in Q3a 
before asking about other family members or relatives that are not listed in the household roster. 
Q 17b Choose the ID from Household members list (Q3a) whether they are in household or not
Q 18 What is the highest office/position ever held by this member? 
[Single Answer] [Show card]
Q 19 Is this member elected or appointed for this position?
[Single Answer] [Show card]
No. Q17a 
{MEMBCODE}
Q17b 
{IDHHRTER}
Q18 
{HIGHESTOFFICE}
Q19 
{HIGHESTAPPT}
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
Household member code for Q17 (for MEMBCODE):
Head of Household 1 2nd cousin 13 
Husband 2 3rd cousin 14 
Wife 3 Grandchildren 15 
Son 4 Parents’ sibling 16 
Daughter 5 Niece 17 
Father 6 Nephew 18 
Mother 7 In-law 19 
Grandfather 8 Other relatives 20 
Grandmother 9 Family’s friend 21 
Brother 10 Household’s 
employee
22 
Sister 11 Don’t know 77 skip to Q20
1st cousin 12 Refuse 66 skip to Q20
Not applicable 99 skip to Q20
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 188
Code for Q19: Office held by 
member
Highest elected office 1 
Highest appointed office 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Code for highest 
office held for 
Q18 for 
{HIGHESTOFFICE}
and 
{HIGHESTAPPT}
Commune councilor 1 Provincial Police Officer 10 
Mayor or village chief 2 Member of Parliament 11 
District Governor 3 Senator 12 
District Deputy Governor 4 Provincial Governor 13 
Member of District 
Government 5 Provincial Deputy Governor 14 
Member of Provincial 
General Secretariat 6 Member of Provincial Cabinet 15 
Provincial Budget 
Officer/Treasurer/Accountant 7 National Cabinet Minister 16 
Provincial Engineer
8 
Other selected or appointed 
position on a government 
executive, legislative, or law 
enforcing body
17 
Provincial Health or 
Education Officer 9 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 20 [Show card] [Single Answer per row]
People learn what is going on in this country and the world from various sources. For each of the 
following sources, indicate whether you use it to obtain information daily, weekly, monthly, less than 
monthly, or never in the last 12 months. This question refers to NEWS only. It does not count if 
respondents watch only TV series, ads, or other shows besides NEWS. 
No. Source information Frequency of use
{NEWSFRQ}
1 Daily newspaper
2 Printed magazines
3 TV news
4 Radio news
5 Mobile phone
6 Email
7 Social Media/Facebook
8 Talk with friends or colleagues
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 189
Code for 
Frequency 
of use
Daily 1 
Weekly 2 
Monthly 3 
Less than monthly 4 
Never 5 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 21 {CONTACTNUMB}
Approximately how many contacts do you have in your phone?
Phone Numbers/Contacts here refer to all the number recorded on phone and on other notes
Number of contacts [Please 
record 
number]
Don’t know 77 skip to Q23
Refuse 66 skip to Q23
Not applicable 99 skip to Q23
Q 22 {CONTACTCMNE}
Approximately how many of those people live in this commune?
Number of people [Please 
record 
number]
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 190
Q 23 
Group Membership: How would you describe your membership of a {organization}? Are you currently a 
member, not currently a member, or a former member? 
[Show card] [Single Answer per row]
No. Group
{GROUPMEMB}
Former 
member
Don’t 
know Refuse Not 
applicable Currently a 
member
Not 
currently a 
member
1 Union, farmers’ 
association, or other 
professional/business 
association
1 2 3 77 66 99 
2 Credit 
Union/Microfinance 
Collective including 
Saving Group, 
Borrowing Group, 
Microfinance, Bank
1 2 3 77 66 99 
3 Non-Government 
Organization (NGO)
1 2 3 77 66 99 
4 Skills/Trade Training 
Cooperative 
1 2 3 77 66 99 
5 Church/Religious group 1 2 3 77 66 99 
6 Sports and Recreation 
Club
1 2 3 77 66 99 
7 Village Government 1 2 3 77 66 99 
Q 24 {VILLAGEMTG} [Single Answer]
Does your commune hold village meetings?
No 1 skip to Q27
Yes 2 If yes, continue to 
Q25 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q27
Refuse 66 skip to Q27
Not 
applicable
99 skip to Q27
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 191
Q 25 {ATTENDMTG} [Single Answer]
Over the past 6 months, did you or a member of your household attend any village meetings?
No 1 skip to Q27
Yes 2 If yes, continue to 
Q26 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q27
Refuse 66 skip to Q27
Not 
applicable
99 skip to Q27
Q 26 {SPOKEMTG} [Single Answer]
Have you, at least once, spoken up during a village meeting in the last 6 months?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not 
applicable
99 
Q 27 {RELIGIONFRQ} [Single Answer]
How often do you attend religious services?
[Note: do not include funeral, wedding, and house warming parties or other kinds of parties]
Does not attend 1 skip to Q29
Less than once a 
month
2 
Once a month 3 
Twice a month 4 
Weekly 5 
Daily 6 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q29
Refuse 66 skip to Q29
Not applicable 99 skip to Q29
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 192
Q 28 {RELIGION} [Multiple Answers]
What religion or denomination do you go to for religious services?
Buddhism, unspecified 1 
Theravada Buddhism 2 
Shaivism 3 
Vaishnavism 4 
Islam 5 
Christianity 6 
Hinduism 7 
Judaism 8 
Other, please specify ________________ 9 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 29 [Single Answer]
Can you identify yourself as {Ethnic Group}? 
Khmer 1 
Indigenous minority 2 
Other (specify ________________) 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 30 {VOLUNTEER} [Single Answer]
Over the past 6 months, did you or a member of your household do any volunteer work with a local 
community organization?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 193
Q 31 {CONTACTPOLIT} [Show card] [Single Answer per row]
Contact with Politicians and Government Officials: 
Have you contacted this person in the last year?
(Note: Contact includes all communication for business or personal reasons and includes all normal methods 
such as email, SMS, phone calls, and in-person visits.)
Politician or Government 
Official No Yes Don’t know Refuse Not 
applicable
1 Village Chief 1 2 77 66 99 
2 Member of Commune Council 1 2 77 66 99 
3 Member of District 
Government 1 2 77 66 99 
4 District Governor 1 2 77 66 99 
5 Member of 
Provincial/Municipal 
Government
1 2 77 66 99 
6 Provincial Governor 1 2 77 66 99 
Political Knowledge
Q 32 {COUNCILTOTAL} [Single Answer]
How many members are on your commune council?
Record number of members ______ members
Don’t know 77 If code 77/66/99 is chosen please 
skip the verification section and 
continue to the next question
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Verification (for enumerator only)
(Please choose code 2 if the answer is correct and code 1 if the answer is incorrect)
Q 33 {COUNCILELECT} [Record number]
When was the first election for commune council?
Year
Don’t know 77 If code 77/66/99 is chosen please 
skip the verification section and 
continue to the next question
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Verification (for enumerator only)
(Please choose code 2 if the answer is correct and code 1 if the answer is incorrect)
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 194
Q 34 {GOVERNORNAME} [Single Answer]
What is the name of your district governor?
Name of district governor
Don’t know 77 If code 77/66/99 is chosen please 
skip the verification section and 
continue to the next question
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Verification (for enumerator only)
(Please choose code 2 if the answer is correct and code 1 if the answer is incorrect)
Q 35 {FAIRNESS} [Single Answer] [Show card]
Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got a chance, or would they try to be 
fair? 
Please show your response on this card, where 1 means that “people would try to take advantage of you” 
and 10 means that “people would try to be fair” (code 1 number) 
People 
would try 
to take 
advantage 
of you

People 
would 
try to 
be fair
Don’t 
know Refuse Not 
applicable
People you
associate 
with 
(friends, 
family, 
associates)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
Other 
people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 66 99 
Q 36 {TRUST} [Single Answer]
Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in 
dealing with people? (Code 1 answer) 
Most people can be trusted 1 
Need to be very careful 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 195
Q 37 {SOCIALRANK} [Photo cards]
I will read to you a list of various social issues that are depicted in these flashcards. While these issues can 
all be considered important, we would like for you to rank them in terms of which ones you think are 
more important for you and your family. In other words, if it were up to you to decide which of these 
social issues the government should focus on, how would you prioritize them? Please arrange the 
flashcards so that the first one is the issue that you would like to prioritize the most, and the last one is 
the one that you would like to prioritize the least. For this, you will only need to rank the 3 issues that are 
most important for you and your family. There is no right or wrong answer, and we realize that sometimes 
issues can be equally important, so all we are asking is for you to try you best. 
[NOTE THAT THIS IS A RANKING FROM 1-3, WHERE 1 IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AND 3 THE LEAST 
IMPORTANT. THIS IS NOT A 1-3 SCALE.] 
Social Issue Rank Don’t 
know Refuse Not 
applicable
Land Rights 77 66 99 
Fair Elections 77 66 99 
Food Prices 77 66 99 
Peace and Security 77 66 99 
Women’s Rights 77 66 99 
Anti-Graft and Corruption 77 66 99 
Environmental Conservation 77 66 99 
Job Generation (Employment) 77 66 99 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Section 7: Delivery of Services
Q 38 [Flashcards and Tokens] [Multiple Answers]
We know that all governments have to make difficult decisions about what types of goods and services to 
provide. In your opinion, which of the following sectors are most important to you and your family and 
should be given more priority for the commune? If it were up to you to decide how the government 
allocates money for your province, which types of projects and programs would you choose? 
We are going to give you 20 tokens to represent an entire government budget for your province. You can 
allocate you tokens any way that you want and you do not need to specify an amount for each sector – 
you can even put all of your tokens on just one sector if you want. Feel free also to move your tokens 
around while you are deciding. Once you’re satisfied with your allocation, we will record it.
Now, we are going to give you 20 tokens again, but this time please allocate them the way you think the 
government would allocate. 
NOTE: ENUMERATORS PROVIDE SECTOR WORKSHEET AND TOKENS
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 196
No. Sector You Government
{SECTORTOKEN}
1 1. Public Health Services (e.g. hospital/clinic/health
station construction)
2 2. Public Education Services (e.g. school/classroom
construction)
3 3. Cash or in-kind transfer/loans/job assistance for
emergencies or for individual needy households
4 4. Water and sanitation infrastructure
5 5. Road construction and rehabilitation
6 6. Construction of community facilities (e.g.
multipurpose halls, basketball courts)
7 7. Business loans and other private economic
development programs
8 8. Agricultural assistance/irrigation systems
9 9. Peace and security
10 10. Community events/festivals/fiestas
77 Don’t know
66 Refuse
99 Not applicable
We are now going to ask you some questions related to your experience and participation in the 2017 
elections. 
Q 39a {VOTED} [Single Answer]
Did you happen to vote in the last commune council election of 2017?
No 1 skip to Q42
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q42
Refuse 66 skip to Q42 
Not applicable 99 skip to Q42
Q 39b {VOTEDHERE} [Single Answer]
Did you vote in this commune?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 197
Q 39c {VOTEDHOME} [Single Answer]
Did you vote in your home commune or commune of temporary/permanent residence?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 40 {VOTETIME} [Single Answer]
How long did you have to wait, from the time you arrived at the precinct to the time you were able to cast 
your vote?
[Note: record actual amount of time in minutes]
[Note to DP: the number must be shorter than 480 minutes]
Record number minutes
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 41a {EVOTING} [Single Answer]
Did your precinct use electronic voting machines?
No 1 skip to Q42
Yes 2 continue to Q41b
Don’t know 77 skip to Q42
Refuse 66 skip to Q42
Not applicable 99 skip to Q42
Q 41b {MACHBREAK} [Single Answer]
Did any of your voting machines break down or malfunction?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 198
Section 9: Voting Influences 
Q 42 [Show card]
We’ll show you some flashcards with factors that commonly influence how people vote. When deciding 
who you will vote for, which of the following factors influences you the most? [Show worksheet with 1-5 
scale]. Here is a worksheet with a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not important and 5 is very important. 
Please place flashcards on the scale. 
[Single Answer per Row]
Not important

Very important
Don’t 
know
Refuse Not 
applicable
a {FACTORFAM} Preferences of your 
family and friends 1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
b {FACTORPOLICY}
Whether candidates will 
focus commune policies 
on things that are 
important to me and my 
family 
1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
c {FACTORGIFT}
Gift or money from the 
candidates before the 
elections
1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
d {FACTORCONNECT}
The candidate’s ability 
to use political 
connections to get 
money and projects for 
the commune
1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
e {FACTORFEAR} Fear of reprisal from 
candidates 1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
f {FACTORHELP}
Approachability or 
helpfulness of the 
candidate
1 2 3 4 5 77 66 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 199
Section 10: Social Networks 
Q 43a {KNOWCOUNCIL} [Single Answer]
Do you know any of the members of the commune council personally?
[Clarify that this is a real relationship, not just that they know of the person or they know the person’s 
name; i.e. the person also has to know them]
No 1 skip to Q44a
Yes 2 continue to Q43b
Don’t know 77 skip to Q44a
Refuse 66 skip to Q44a
Not applicable 99 skip to Q44a
Q 43b {COUNCILNUMB} [Single Answer]
How many commune council members do you know?
1 1 
2 2 
3 3 
More: specify _______ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 44a {KNOWDIST} [Single Answer]
Do you know any district government officials personally?
[Clarify that this is a real relationship, not just that they know of the person or they know the person’s 
name; i.e. the person also has to know them]
No 1 skip to Q45a
Yes 2 continue to Q44b
Don’t know 77 skip to Q45a
Refuse 66 skip to Q45a
Not applicable 99 skip to Q45a
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 200
Q 44b {DISTNUMB} [Single Answer]
How many district government officials do you know?
1 1 
2 2 
3 3 
More: specify _______ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 45a {KNOWPROV} [Single Answer]
Do you know any provincial government officials personally?
[Clarify that this is a real relationship, not just that they know of the person or they know the person’s 
name; i.e. the person also has to know them]
No 1 skip to Q46a
Yes 2 continue to Q45b
Don’t know 77 skip to Q46a
Refuse 66 skip to Q46a
Not applicable 99 skip to Q46a
Q 45b {PROVNUMB} [Single Answer]
How many provincial government officials do you know?
1 1 
2 2 
3 3 
More: specify _______ 96 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 201
Q 46a {KNOWGOV} [Single Answer]
Do you know the district governor personally?
[Clarify that this is a real relationship, not just that they know of the person or they know the person’s 
name; i.e. the person also has to know them]
No 1 skip to Q47
Yes 2 continue to Q46b
Don’t know 77 skip to Q47
Refuse 66 skip to Q47
Not applicable 99 skip to Q47
Q 46b {KNOWGOVTYPE} [Multiple Answers]
How do you know the district governor?
skip to Q49a Himself / Herself 1 Former classmate 10 
Child 2 Business relationship 11 
Parent 3 Conversations at events 12 
Sibling 4 Family friend 13 
Cousin 5 Former colleague 14 
Grandchild
6 
Member or former member of 
same club or organization as 
you
15 
Parent’s sibling 7 Relative 16 
Nibling (Nephew or 
Niece) 8 Other, please specify: ________ 96 
Grandparent 9 Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 47 {GOVOTHER} [Single Answer]
Do you know someone that knows the district governor personally?
No 1 skip to Q48
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 skip to Q48
Refuse 66 skip to Q48
Not applicable 99 skip to Q48
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 202
Q 48 {OTHERNUMB} [Single Answer]
If you were to require a personal connection to the district governor, approximately how many people 
would you need to connect through before you are able to reach the district governor? For example, if 
you know someone who is a friend of the district governor’s relative, then you would need only to 
connect through two people before you reach the district governor. Note that you and the first person 
should know each other, the first and second person should know each other personally, all the way to 
the last person who should know the district governor personally. 
Record number Allow “0” as an answer
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Q 49a {FRIENDSCOMMUNE} [Multiple Answer]
Here we have a list of all the communes in the district. Can you let us know which communes you have 
friends and family in, excluding this commune? 
[Note: show the commune worksheet with names of all the communes in the district]
Don’t know 77 skip to Q49b
Refuse 66 skip to Q49b
Not applicable 99 skip to Q49b
Q 49b {LASTINT} 
Did you ever participate in this survey before?
No 1 
Yes 2 
Don’t know 77 
Refuse 66 
Not applicable 99 
Thank you very much for your participation 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 203
Enumerator Impressions (Do Not Ask Respondents – Questions for Enumerators)
NOTE: FOR ENUMERATORS ONLY
Q 50 {OTHERRESPONDENT} [Multiple Answers]
Who participated in the interview apart from the main respondent? 
Family Member (in the household) 1 
Family Member (outside the 
household)
2 
Friend/Neighbor 3 
None 88 
Others, please specify: ____________ 96 
Q 51 {RESPPROB} [Single Answer]
Did the interview have any problems that would affect the integrity of the questions? 
No problems 1 
Some problems 2 
Major problems 3 
Q 52 {RESPCLASS} [Single Answer]
What socioeconomic class is the respondent? 
Upper middle class 1 
Middle class 2 
Lower middle class 3 
Skilled working class 4 
Working class & lowest levels of subsistence 5 
Q 53 {RESPCOMPREH} [Single Answer]
How well did the respondent understand the survey questions? 
Extremely well 1 
Moderately well 2 
Somewhat well 3 
Slightly well 4 
Not well at all 5 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 204
Q 54 {RESPWILLING} [Single Answer]
How willing was the respondent in sharing information? 
Extremely willing 1 
Moderately willing 2 
Somewhat willing 3 
Slightly willing 4 
Not willing at all 5 
Q 55 {RESPCONC} [Single Answer]
Do you think the respondent was concentrating throughout the interview? 
Concentrated throughout 1 
Sometimes lost concentration 2 
Distracted throughout 3 
Q 56 {IVRSTU} [Single Answer]
Which of the following statements best describes the interview situation? 
Private location, only the respondent and I were present 1 skip to Q58
One or several people were present, but did not interrupt the 
interview 2 
One or several people were present, and did interrupt (e.g. talk to the 
respondent) the interview 3 
Q 57 {OTHPRESGEND} [Single Answer]
What gender were the other people present during the interview? 
Male only 1 
Female only 2 
Both male and female 3 
Q 58 {RESPCOMFORT} [Single Answer]
In answering the survey questions, how comfortable did the respondent seem to be? 
Extremely comfortable/at ease 1 
Moderately comfortable/at ease 2 
Somewhat comfortable/at ease 3 
Slightly comfortable/at ease 4 
Not comfortable at all/uneasy 5 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 205
Survey Instrument: Endline Survey (Khmer)
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 206
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 207
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 208
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 209
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 210
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 211
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 212
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 213
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 214
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 215
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 216
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 217
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 218
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 219
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 220
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 221
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 222
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 223
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 224
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 225
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 226
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 227
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 228
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 229
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 230
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 231
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 232
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 233
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 234
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 235
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 236
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 237
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 238
ANNEX IV: WORKS CITED 
Associated Press. (2018, August 15). Cambodian Election Results Give Ruling Party Sweep of 
Seats. VOA. Retrieved from https://www.voanews.com/a/cambodian-election-results￾give-ruling-party-sweep-of-seats/4529519.html
Barnes, Tiffany D. 2012. “Gender and Legislative Preferences: Evidence from the Argentine 
Provinces.” Politics & Gender 8 (04): 483–507. doi: 10.1017/S1743923X12000505 
Barnes, Tiffany D. 2016. Gendering Legislative Behavior: Institutional Constraints and Collaboration in 
Argentina. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barnes, Tiffany D. and Mirya R. Holman (2018) Taking diverse backgrounds into account in 
studies of political ambition and representation, Politics, Groups, and Identities. 
Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21565503.2018.1532916. 
Bauer, N. M. (2014). Emotional, Sensitive, and Unfit for Office? Gender Stereotype Activation 
and Support Female Candidates. Political Psychology 36(6):691-708. Retrieved 
from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12186
Cambodia profile – Timeline. (2018a, July 20). BBC. Retrieved from 
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13006828
Clayton, Amanda, Diana Z. O’Brien and Jennifer M. Piscopo. (2019) “All Male Panels? 
Representation
and Democratic Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.
Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12391
Cruz, Cesi & Davidson, Michael. 2014. “Using Social Networks to Find Better Politicians: 
Experimental Evidence from the Philippines” presented at the Annual Political Networks 
Conference 
Fox, Richard L. and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2010. “If Only They’d Ask: Gender, Recruitment, and 
Political Ambition.” The Journal of Politics 72(2):310-326. Retrieved 
from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990752
Fox, Richard L. and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2011. “Gendered Perceptions and Political Candidacies: 
A Central Barrier to Women’s Equality in Electoral Politics.” American Journal of 
Political Science 55(1):59-73. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/25766254 
Heilman, Madeline E. 2012. “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias.” Research in Organizational 
Behaviour 32:113-135. Retrieved from 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308512000093
Holman, Mirya R. 2015. Women in Politics in the American City. Philadelphia, PA: Temple 
University Press.
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 239
Holman, M. R., & Schneider, M. C. (2016). Gender, race, and political ambition: how 
intersectionality and frames influence interest in political office. Politics, Groups, and 
Identities. Retrieved from: 
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21565503.2016.1208105. 
Huddy, Leonie and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male 
and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37(1):119-147. 
Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2111526 
Human Rights Watch. (2017). Cambodia: Events of 2017. Retrieved from 
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/cambodia#
Kanthak, Kristin and Jonathan Woon. 2015. “Women Don’t Run? Election Aversion and 
Candidate Entry.” American Journal of Political Science 59(3):595-612. Retrieved 
from https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12158 
Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson and Jessica Robinson Preece. 2017. “How to Elect 
More Women: Gender and Candidate Success in a Field Experiment.” American Journal of 
Political Science 61(4):927-943. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12300 
Labonne, Julien, Parsa, Sahar, and Querubin, Pablo. 2017. “Political Dynasties, Term Limits, and 
Female Political Empowerment: Evidence from the Philippines.” Technical 
report. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2930380 
National Election Committee (2019). “The National Election Committee (NEC): Independence, 
Neutrality, Truthfulness, Justice and Transparency.” Retrieved from 
https://www.necelect.org.kh/english/ 
O’Brien, Diana Z. 2018. “‘Righting’ Conventional Wisdom: Women and Right Parties in 
Established Democracies.” Politics & Gender 14 (1): 27–55. 
doi:10.1017/S1743923X17000514 
Phnom Penh Post: Firing and resignations after sale of Cambodian daily. (2018b, May 7) BBC.
Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44027032 
Preece, Jessica Robinson, Olga Bogach Stoddard and Rachel Fisher. 2016. “Run, Jane, Run! 
Gendered Responses to Political Party Recruitment.” Political Behaviour 
38(3):561-577. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9327-3 
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political 
Science 46(1):20-34. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3088412
World Development Indicators. Washinton, D.C.: The World Bank. 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 240
ANNEX V: REGRESSION TABLES 
The tables below report the full regression results from the coefficient plots above. In Tables 
A.1 to A.10, column one reports the results of the pooled treatment regression (corresponding
to the first equation in the data analysis section) and column two reports the results allowing
for separate coefficients for the two different treatment arms (corresponding to the second
equation in the data analysis section).
Table A.1: Treatment effects: Number of Female Candidates
(1) (2)
Number of Female 
Candidates 
Number of Female 
Candidates 
Pooled Treatment 3.07+
(1.65)
SMS Treatment Only 3.38+ 
(1.92)
SMS and MOC Treatment 2.76
(1.92)
Constant 15.9***
(1.35)
15.9***
(1.35)
Observations 150 150
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses. + p < .1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 
0.01, *** p < .001
Table A.2: Treatment effects: Share of Female Candidates
(1) (2)
Share of Female Candidates Share of Female Candidates
SMS Treatment Only 0.028*
(0.01)
SMS and MOC Treatment 0.012
(0.01)
Pooled Treatment 0.020+
(0.01)
Constant 0.20***
(0.01)
0.20***
(0.01)
Observations 150 150
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses. + p < .1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 
0.01, *** p < .001
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 241
Table A.3: Treatment effects by party: Number of Female Candidates in the CPP
(1) (2)
CPP Female Candidates CPP Female Candidates
SMS Treatment Only 0.64*
(0.31)
SMS and MOC Treatment 0.36
(0.31)
Pooled Treatment 0.50+
(0.27)
Constant 
3.48***
(0.22)
3.48***
(0.22)
Observations 150 150
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses. + p < .1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 
0.01, *** p < .001
Table A.4: Treatment effects by party: Share of Female Candidates in the CPP
(1) (2)
CPP Share of Female 
Candidates 
CPP Share of Female 
Candidates 
SMS Treatment Only 0.011
(0.01)
SMS and MOC Treatment -0.0030
(0.01)
Pooled Treatment 0.0043
(0.01)
Constant 0.18***
(0.01)
0.18***
(0.01)
Observations 150 150
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses. + p < .1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 
0.01, *** p < .001
Table A.5: Treatment effects by party: Number of Female Candidates in the CNRP
(1) (2)
CNRP Female Candidates CNRP Female Candidates
SMS Treatment Only 0.64
(0.42)
SMS and MOC Treatment 0.68
(0.42)
Pooled Treatment 0.66+
(0.36)
Constant 2.28***
(0.30)
2.28***
(0.29)
Observations 150 150
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses. + p < .1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 
0.01, *** p < .001
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 242
Table A.6: Treatment effects by party: Share of Female Candidates in the CNRP
(1) (2)
CNRP Share of Female 
Candidates 
CNRP Share of Female 
Candidates 
SMS Treatment Only 0.021
(0.02)
SMS and MOC Treatment 0.020
(0.02)
Pooled Treatment 0.021
(0.02)
Constant 0.13***
(0.01)
0.13***
(0.01)
Observations 150 150
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses. + p < .1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 
0.01, *** p < .001
Table A.7: Treatment effects by party: Number of Female Candidates in the LDP
(1) (2)
LDP Female Candidates LDP Female Candidates
SMS Treatment Only 0.12
(0.61)
SMS and MOC Treatment -0.36
(0.61)
Pooled Treatment -0.12
(0.52)
Constant 3.34***
(0.43)
3.34***
(0.43)
Observations 150 150
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses. + p < .1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 
0.01, *** p < .001
Table A.8: Treatment effects by party: Share of Female Candidates in the LDP
(1) (2)
LDP Share of Female 
Candidates 
LDP Share of Female 
Candidates 
SMS Treatment Only 0.0045
(0.03)
SMS and MOC Treatment -0.014
(0.03)
Pooled Treatment -0.0055
(0.03)
Constant 0.25***
(0.02)
0.25***
(0.02)
Observations 101 101
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses. + p < .1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 
0.01, *** p < .001
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 243
Table A.9: Treatment effects by party: Number of Female Candidates in the FUNCINPEC
(1) (2)
FUNCINPEC Female 
Candidates 
FUNCINPEC Female 
Candidates 
SMS Treatment Only 2.10**
(0.69)
SMS and MOC Treatment 1.44*
(0.69)
Pooled Treatment 1.77**
(0.60)
Constant 3.26***
(0.49)
3.26***
(0.49)
Observations 150 150
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses. + p < .1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 
0.01, *** p < .001
Table A.10: Treatment effects by party: Share of Female Candidates in the FUNCINPEC
(1) (2)
FUNCINPEC Share of 
Female Candidates
FUNCINPEC Share of 
Female Candidates
SMS Treatment Only 0.073*
(0.03)
SMS and MOC Treatment 0.024
(0.03)
Pooled Treatment 0.048+
(0.03)
Constant 0.24***
(0.02)
0.24***
(0.02)
Observations 115 115
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors in parentheses. + p < .1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 
0.01, *** p < .001
The tables below report the full regression results from the individual level coefficient plots 
above, restricting the sample to female respondents. Regressions include triplet fixed effects 
and standard errors clustered by commune. Each column is labeled with the dependent 
variable, and the treatment effect pools both treatment arms. 
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 244
Table A.11: Individual-level treatment effects: Political Engagement
(1) (2) (3)
Politician in 
Household Contacted Politician Voted 
Pooled Treatment 0.0075 0.060 -0.013
(0.02) (0.04) (0.01)
Constant 0.27*** 6.85*** 0.94***
(0.02) (0.03) (0.01)
Observations 2044 2044 2044
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors clustered by commune in parentheses. + p < 
.1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < .001
Table A.12: Individual-level treatment effects: Political Engagement Commune Meetings
(1) (2)
Attended Commune Meeting Spoke at Commune Meeting
Pooled Treatment -0.0019 0.0046
(0.03) (0.01)
Constant 0.71*** 0.15***
(0.02) (0.01)
Observations 1967 1933
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors clustered by commune in parentheses. + p < 
.1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < .001
Table A.13: Individual-level treatment effects: Social Engagement
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Volunteered
All 
Associational 
Memberships
Coop 
Member
Religious 
Group 
Member
Recreation 
Group 
Member
Pooled 
Treatment 
0.0085 0.014+ 0.014 0.019* 0.0052
(0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.00)
Constant 0.020*** 0.076*** 0.027*** 0.038*** 0.013***
(0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.00)
Observations 2044 2035 2023 2029 2028
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors clustered by commune in parentheses. + p < 
.1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < .001
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 245
Table A.14: Individual-level treatment effects: Social Contacts
(1) (2)
Phone Contacts Friends in the Commune
Pooled Treatment 0.83 -0.058
(0.51) (0.09)
Constant 6.76*** 2.06***
(0.44) (0.07)
Observations 1852 2044
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors clustered by commune in parentheses. + p < 
.1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < .001
Table A.15: Individual-level treatment effects: Top Social Issues Reported
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Land Rights Food Prices Fair Elections Security
Pooled 
Treatment 
-0.011 0.0025 -0.040+ -0.025
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)
Constant 0.45*** 0.45*** 0.57*** 0.38***
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)
Observations 2044 2044 2044 2044
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors clustered by commune in parentheses. + p < 
.1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < .001
Table A.16: Individual-level treatment effects: Top Social Issues Reported
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Women's Rights Corruption Environment Jobs 
Pooled 
Treatment 
0.031+ 0.0075 0.039* -0.0047
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)
Constant 0.32*** 0.29*** 0.22*** 0.31***
(0.01) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01)
Observations 2044 2044 2044 2044
Linear regression with triplet fixed effects. Standard errors clustered by commune in parentheses. + p < 
.1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < .001
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 246
ANNEX VI: TIMELINE OF POLITICAL EVENTS
The experimental intervention and impact evaluation project coincided with large scale political 
changes as Hun Sen implemented new elections and policies, while consolidating his rule as 
Cambodia’s Prime Minister. He marks his 34th consecutive year in power in 2019. His party, 
Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), has placed first in national elections consistently throughout 
this time period. However, these electoral victories have been met with allegations of voter 
harassment (1998) and electoral irregularities (2008, 2013) resulting in international 
condemnation and mass domestic protests in 2013 and 2014 (BBC).
Hun Sen’s political opposition has long faced adversity in holding the ruling party to account. 
The former opposition leader, Sam Rainsy, has been repeatedly stripped of immunity by 
parliament and forced into exile abroad. His party, Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), 
made electoral gains in the 2013 national election and 2017 commune elections (Human Rights 
Watch). Rainsy was sentenced in absentia to five years in prison in 2016 for alleged defamation. 
Parliament amended a law to ban anyone convicted of an offence from running for office in 
2017, and Rainsy was forced to resign as head of CNRP (BBC). 
Recent political events implied a further tightening of control by CPP in the lead-up to the 
general elections on July 29, 2018, as illustrated chronologically in Figure 13.
Figure 13: Political Events in Cambodia March 2017 – July 2018
March 2017 • Kem Sokha, a human rights activist, is appointed the new leader of CNRP (BBC)
June
2017
• Commune elections are held amidst allegations of threats and harassment towards the
opposition and civil society groups (Human Rights Watch)
September 
2017
• Sokha is arrested and charged with treason (BBC)
• Cambodia Daily, an independent newspaper, is forced to close when the General
Department of Taxation claims it owes over USD $6 million in taxes (Human Rights
Watch, BBC)
• The government revokes licenses for independent radio outlets including Voice of
America, Radio Free Asia, and Voice of Democracy (Human Rights Watch)
August 2017 • Ministry of Foreign Affairs orders the closure of the National Democratic Institute, an
American-funded NGO, and expels its non-Khmer staff (Human Rights Watch)
October 
2017 
• Government suspends registration for two other NGOs: Equitable Cambodia and the
Federation of Cambodian Intellectuals and Students (Human Rights Watch)
November 
2017
• Cambodia’s Supreme Court dissolves CNRP and bans 118 CNRP members of
parliament and party officials from political activity for five years (Human Rights 
Watch) 
March 2018
• Owner of The Phnom Penh Post, arguably Cambodia’s last independent daily
newspaper, forced to sell the business after General Department of Taxation claims it
owes over USD $3.9 million in taxes (BBC)
• New owner is the director of a public relations firm that lists Hun Sen as a former
client
July 
2018
• CPP wins all 125 seats in the National Assembly, heralding another five-year term for
Hun Sen (VOA)
• Opposition raises concerns about pre-election tactics and election logistics (VOA)
DRG-LER – CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M /AID-OAA-M-13-00013
FINAL EVALUATION OF USAID/CAMBODIA’S POLITICAL PROCESSESS AND REFORMS PROGRAM | 247
U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20523