ABSTRACT
MEASURE Evaluation, in collaboration with local partners, is conducting an impact evaluation of the 
USAID-funded Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations (ISVP) project in Rwanda. This evaluation 
is a prospective, cluster randomized, controlled trial design, using a difference-in-differences (DID) 
estimation strategy with fixed-effects modeling to evaluate the impact of ISVP on economic, health, and 
education outcomes. Administrative sectors were randomly assigned to study groups receiving different 
intervention packages: (1) a household economic strengthening (HES-only) group, which provides a core 
platform of financial interventions; (2) a full ISVP group, which supplements the core platform of HES 
interventions with health, education, and skill-building services; and (3) a control group, receiving no ISVP 
interventions. An initial round of data collection was conducted July–September 2017, and it employed 
four quantitative surveys (Household, Caregiver, Youth, and ISLG questionnaires). The final household 
sample sizes were 1,428 for full ISVP, 1,309 for HES-only, and 1,216 for control. Balance tests across 
primary and secondary outcomes of interest suggested that the program and control groups are different 
from each other in some systematic ways. Potential for contamination in the study areas was also identified. 
Implications for end line data collection and analysis in late 2018 are discussed.


6 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 7
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are thankful to the many participants who gave us their time and energy and to the local leaders and 
community staff who helped us in the field.
We thank the Government of Rwanda—particularly the Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Gender, 
National Institute of Statistics Rwanda, and the Rwanda National Ethics Committee—for supporting this 
evaluation.
We also thank Ina Kalisa, National University of Rwanda, School of Public Health, for her contribution 
to coordinating baseline data collection.
Daniel Handel, of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), was instrumental in 
developing the evaluation design and launching the evaluation. We thank Mary de Boer, Esron Niyonsaba, 
Lindsay Little, and Célestin Mutumayi, of USAID/Rwanda, and Samson Radeny, Juste Kayihura, Tona Isibo, 
and Absolom Muramira, staff of the Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project, for the great 
effort they put into communication, coordination, strategizing, and information sharing with the evaluation 
team. We also thank Ana Djapovic Scholl, of USAID/Office of HIV and AIDS, and Christine Fu, formerly 
of USAID, for their management assistance.
A large, talented team at the USAID-funded MEASURE Evaluation made this work possible: Martha 
Priedman-Skiles, who led initial design of the study; Peter Lance, who led sample design and selection; Lisa 
Marie Albert, who managed survey development and carried out local staff training; Judy Tatwangire 
(consultant), who provided data collection quality control; Heather Biehl, who assisted with editing and 
writing; and Becky Wilkes, for her work mapping study sites. Gabriela Escudero assisted with logistics and 
management.
We thank MEASURE Evaluation’s knowledge management team for editorial and production services.
8 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
CONTENTS
CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8
FIGURES...........................................................................................................................................................................11
TABLES .............................................................................................................................................................................11
ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................................................................................14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................16
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................16
Research Questions and Methods.............................................................................................................................16
Analysis.....................................................................................................................................................................17
Results............................................................................................................................................................................17
Exposure to Interventions.....................................................................................................................................19
Balance Testing........................................................................................................................................................19
Discussion .....................................................................................................................................................................19
Balance Across Evaluation Groups......................................................................................................................19
Implications for the Impact Evaluation ..............................................................................................................19
Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................................20
Next Steps.....................................................................................................................................................................21
Background ........................................................................................................................................................................29
Country Context...........................................................................................................................................................29
ISVP Project Strategy ..................................................................................................................................................29
Setting.............................................................................................................................................................................30
Underlying Development Hypothesis and Theory of Change .............................................................................31
Research Objectives and Questions..........................................................................................................................32
METHODS .......................................................................................................................................................................34
EVALUATION DESIGN.........................................................................................................................................34
Study Population ..........................................................................................................................................................34
Sampling Frame and Design.......................................................................................................................................34
Study Procedures..........................................................................................................................................................35
Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................................................................36
Analysis..........................................................................................................................................................................36
RESULTS...........................................................................................................................................................................37
Response Rates.............................................................................................................................................................37
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 9
Population Characteristics..........................................................................................................................................38
Household ................................................................................................................................................................38
Caregiver...................................................................................................................................................................45
Youth.........................................................................................................................................................................47
Integrated Savings and Lending Group Members.............................................................................................49
Economic Status...........................................................................................................................................................50
Child Health and Nutrition Status.............................................................................................................................55
Education ......................................................................................................................................................................60
Child Protection ...........................................................................................................................................................65
Household Decision Making......................................................................................................................................66
Intimate Partner Violence...........................................................................................................................................70
Youth Attitudes Towards Gender.............................................................................................................................73
Health Service Use .......................................................................................................................................................76
Youth HIV/AIDS Knowledge and Prevention Behaviors...................................................................................82
Early Childhood Development..................................................................................................................................83
Household Use of Program-related Services...........................................................................................................87
DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................................................................88
Balance Across Evaluation Groups...........................................................................................................................88
Key Outcomes..............................................................................................................................................................88
Exposure to Interventions..........................................................................................................................................90
Implications for the Impact Evaluation ...................................................................................................................90
Comparability of Program and Control Groups................................................................................................90
Contamination or Spillover ...................................................................................................................................91
Selection Bias and Confounding...........................................................................................................................91
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................................92
NEXT STEPS ...................................................................................................................................................................92
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................................93
APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL METHODS............................................................................................................94
Training and Fieldwork...............................................................................................................................................94
Sampling Size Estimation and Design......................................................................................................................96
Sample Size Estimation..........................................................................................................................................96
Sampling Design......................................................................................................................................................97
Household Wealth Calculation ..................................................................................................................................98
Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................................................................98
10 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
APPENDIX B. SECTOR ASSIGNMENTS (CONFIDENTIAL) ........................................................................99
APPENDIX C. ADDITIONAL RESULTS .............................................................................................................103
APPENDIX D. SUMMARY OF BALANCE TEST RESULTS ..........................................................................109
APPENDIX E. BASELINE STUDY PROTOCOL (CONFIDENTIAL).........................................................117
APPENDIX F. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (CONFIDENTIAL)...........................150
APPENDIX G. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS...................................................................................................159
APPENDIX H. STUDY TEAM .................................................................................................................................270
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 11
FIGURES
Figure 1. Improved services for vulnerable population implementation districts..................................................31
Figure 2. Theory of change for the Twiyubake/ISVP Project ..................................................................................32
Figure 3. Percent of households with moderate or severe household hunger........................................................50
Figure 4. Caregivers who knew their child’s HIV status.............................................................................................55
Figure 5. Birth registration at sector level .....................................................................................................................59
Figure 6. Children ages 7–17 years who attended all school days during the last week of instruction...............60
Figure 7. Caregivers who agreed that harsh physical punishment is an appropriate means of discipline or 
control in the home or school ........................................................................................................................................65
Figure 8. Married female caregivers who reported physical or sexual violence in the past 12 months ..............70
Figure 9. Youth ages 10–17 years old tested for HIV within the past 12 months who knew their HIV status 80
Figure 10. Map of study group assignments.................................................................................................................99
TABLES
Table 1. Key primary and secondary outcomes of interest........................................................................................17
Table 2. Summary of key outcomes by study group ...................................................................................................22
Table 3. Primary and secondary outcomes for the evaluation...................................................................................33
Table 4. Sampling goals....................................................................................................................................................35
Table 5. Response to household, caregiver, ISLG member, and youth questionnaires........................................37
Table 6. Household population characteristics, per household survey ....................................................................38
Table 7. Household characteristics, per household survey.........................................................................................39
Table 8. Distribution of households by wealth quintile..............................................................................................39
Table 9. Household characteristics: utilities, communication, location....................................................................40
Table 10. Household characteristics: type of toilet/latrine facilities.........................................................................41
Table 11. Household characteristics: source of drinking water.................................................................................42
Table 12. Mean time to reach selected health services, per household report........................................................42
Table 13. Children’s caregiver arrangements and orphanhood .................................................................................43
Table 14. Occupation of household head1
....................................................................................................................44
Table 15. Working status of household head ...............................................................................................................45
Table 16. Sex of caregivers..............................................................................................................................................45
Table 17. Caregiver characteristics: age and marital status.........................................................................................46
Table 18. Caregiver characteristics: attended school and highest level of education completed .........................46
Table 19. Caregiver occupation status...........................................................................................................................47
Table 20. Sex of interviewed youth................................................................................................................................47
Table 21. Age groups of youth 10- to 17-years-old.....................................................................................................48
Table 22. Primary caregiver of youth participant.........................................................................................................48
Table 23. Age of integrated savings and lending group members, by study arm ...................................................49
Table 24. School attendance and educational attainment of integrated savings and lending members..............49
Table 25. Households’ ability to pay for unexpected household expenses .............................................................50
Table 26. Household farm tools and agricultural assets .............................................................................................51
Table 27. Household land ownership and cultivation in the past 12 months.........................................................52
Table 28. Mean and median daily consumption per capita (Rwandan Francs).......................................................52
12 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 29. Consumption shares per capita .....................................................................................................................52
Table 30. Household savings and types of savings institutions.................................................................................53
Table 31. Youth 10–17 years old reporting new employment in the past six months ..........................................54
Table 32. Caregiver’s knowledge of child’s HIV status..............................................................................................55
Table 33. Undernourishment1 among children............................................................................................................56
Table 34. Infant and young child feeding practices for children ages 6–59 months..............................................57
Table 35. Characteristics of children too sick to participate in daily activities in the past two weeks.................59
Table 36. Main reasons students ages 7–17 years missed at least one school day during the last week of 
instruction ..........................................................................................................................................................................61
Table 37. Main reason for children ages 7–17 years not being enrolled in school................................................62
Table 38. Children ages 5–17 years who attended all school days in the last week of instruction ......................62
Table 39. Sex of children who progressed in school during the last year................................................................63
Table 40. School progress of 13- to 17-year-olds at various levels of school .........................................................63
Table 41. Secondary school enrollment among 13- to 17-year-olds.........................................................................64
Table 42. Regular secondary school attendance among 13- to 17-year-olds...........................................................64
Table 43. Youth ages 13–17 years enrolled in and regularly attended secondary school ......................................65
Table 44. Characteristics of female caregivers in the full ISVP group who made some household decisions 
alone or jointly...................................................................................................................................................................66
Table 45. Characteristics of female caregivers in the HES-only group who made some household decisions 
alone or jointly...................................................................................................................................................................67
Table 46. Characteristics of female caregivers in the control group who made some household decisions alone 
or jointly .............................................................................................................................................................................68
Table 47. Decision making on wife's cash earnings (caregiver report).....................................................................69
Table 48. Decision making on use of husband's cash earnings (caregiver report) .................................................70
Table 49. Characteristics of married, female caregivers who experienced physical violence in the past 12 
months................................................................................................................................................................................71
Table 50. Characteristics of female caregivers who experienced sexual violence in the last 12 months............71
Table 51. Household decision making among married, female caregivers who experienced intimate partner 
violence...............................................................................................................................................................................72
Table 52. Decisions of how married, female caregivers earnings were spent among those who experienced 
intimate partner violence .................................................................................................................................................72
Table 53. Decisions on how to spend spouse’s earnings among married, female caregivers with who 
experienced intimate partner violence...........................................................................................................................73
Table 54. Attitudes towards gender among youth ages 13–17 years old .................................................................74
Table 55. Gender equitable men score band among youth ages 13–17 years.........................................................75
Table 56. GEM score levels among youth ages 13–17 years who attended a positive masculinity program ....75
Table 57. GEM score levels in youth ages 13–17 years who were enrolled in school...........................................76
Table 58. Characteristics of children ages 0–59 months monitored for growth at home or at a health center in 
the last 12 months.............................................................................................................................................................76
Table 59. Characteristics of children ages 0–59 months that had growth monitoring events at home or a 
health center in the last 12 months................................................................................................................................77
Table 60. Characteristics of children ages 0–59 months old with fever and treatment for fever within two 
weeks of interview ............................................................................................................................................................78
Table 61. Children ages 0–59 months old with diarrhea and treatment within two weeks of interview............79
Table 62. Youth ages 10–17 years old tested for HIV within the past 12 months and knew their HIV status 80
Table 63. Characteristics of caregivers who reported having had an HIV test1
.....................................................81
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 13
Table 64. Characteristics of caregivers who had an HIV test in the last 12 months and knew their test results
..............................................................................................................................................................................................81
Table 65. Knowledge of HIV prevention strategies among 10- to 17-year-old youth ..........................................82
Table 66. Sexual behavior among 10- to 17-year-old youth.......................................................................................82
Table 67. Condom use among youth ages 10–17 years who had sexual intercourse in the past 12 months.....83
Table 68. Characteristics of children 36–59 months old who attend an early childhood development program
..............................................................................................................................................................................................83
Table 69. Characteristics of children ages 0–59 months who received four or more stimulating activities in the 
past week with a household member at least 15 years old, per caregiver report....................................................84
Table 70. Caregivers who correctly answered nutrition test questions, full ISVP group ......................................85
Table 71. Caregivers who correctly answered nutrition test questions, HES-only group.....................................85
Table 72. Caregivers who correctly answered nutrition test questions, control group..........................................86
Table 73. Use of program-related services....................................................................................................................87
Table 74. Study sectors and study group assignments..............................................................................................100
Table 75. Youth questionnaire completion outcome, among youth ages 10–17 years selected for the youth 
questionnaire....................................................................................................................................................................103
Table 76. Characteristics of children 0–59 months engaged in any stimulation activity with a household 
member older than 15 years..........................................................................................................................................103
Table 77. Characteristics of children ages 0–50 months who were read book by a household member older 
than 15 years old .............................................................................................................................................................103
Table 78. Characteristics of children ages 0-59 months who were told stories by a household member older 
than 15 years old .............................................................................................................................................................104
Table 79. Characteristics of children 0–59 months who had a household member older than 15 years sing 
songs to them ..................................................................................................................................................................104
Table 80. Characteristics of children 0–59 months who were taken outside by a household member older than 
15 years.............................................................................................................................................................................104
Table 81. Characteristics of children 0–59 months who were played with by a household member older than 
15 years.............................................................................................................................................................................105
Table 82. Characteristics of children 0–59 months old who engaged in naming, counting, and drawing with a 
household member older than 15 years ......................................................................................................................105
Table 83. Characteristics of children with a birth certificate....................................................................................105
Table 84. Characteristics of children with a birth certificate observed by the interviewer .................................106
Table 85. Characteristics of children 0–59 months old with fever in the last two weeks...................................106
Table 86. Characteristics of children 0–59 months old with diarrhea within two weeks of interview..............107
Table 87. Educational progress of children during the last year .............................................................................107
Table 88. Attendance of children enrolled in school during the last week of school ..........................................107
Table 89. Characteristics of caregivers who agreed that harsh physical punishment is an appropriate means of 
discipline in the home or school...................................................................................................................................108
Table 90. Youth 10–17 years old who had an HIV test within the past 12 months and knew their HIV status
............................................................................................................................................................................................108
Table 91. Summary of balance test results..................................................................................................................109
14 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
ABBREVIATIONS
ART antiretroviral therapy
AVSI Association of Volunteers in International Service
CSOs Rwandan civil society organizations
ECD early childhood development
EPSEM equal probability of selection method
FTP file transfer protocol
GBV gender-based violence
GC global communities
GEM gender equitable men 
HBC home-based care
HES household economic strengthening
HH household
HTC HIV testing and counseling
ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
ICT information and communications technology
IYCF infant and young child feeding
IPV intimate partner violence
IRB institutional review board
ISLGs integrated savings and lending groups
ISVP Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations
IYCF infant and young child feeding
MER monitoring, evaluation, and reporting
MIGEPROF Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion
MOH Ministry of Health
MVC most vulnerable children list
MUAC mid-upper arm circumference
NCC National Commission for Children
NGOs nongovernmental organizations
NISR National Institute of Statistics Rwanda
OVC orphans and vulnerable children
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 15
PIH Partners in Health
PLHA people living with HIV/AIDS
PMTCT prevention of mother-to-child transmission
RPO Rwandan partner organizations
RNEC Rwanda National Ethics Committee
RWF Rwandan francs
TVET technical and vocational education and training
UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
UNC University of North Carolina
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WASH water, sanitation and hygiene
16 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Introduction
While Rwanda has achieved great progress in economic growth, poverty reduction, and HIV prevention over 
the past decade, significant challenges to health and development remain. Vulnerable populations, such as 
people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHAs), out-of-school youth, very poor or female-headed households, and 
orphans and vulnerable children (OVCs) face particular challenges with respect to health, education, and 
economic stability. The Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations (ISVP) project, known locally 
as Twiyubake, aims to strengthen the capacity of target populations and communities to improve their health, 
nutrition, and well-being; OVC, PLHA, and economically vulnerable families are a particular program focus. 
The ISVP project is led by Global Communities (GC), along with local nongovernmental organizations 
(NGOs), Rwandan civil society organizations (CSOs), and the Ministries of Health (MOH) and Gender and 
Family Promotion (MIGEPROF) and supported by the United States Agency for International Development 
(USAID) Rwanda Mission.
MEASURE Evaluation, led by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with support from 
USAID/Rwanda, and in collaboration with the National University of Rwanda, College of Medicine and 
Health Sciences (NURCMHS) and School of Public Health (SPH), and Incisive Africa is conducting an 
impact evaluation of the ISVP project. The ISVP impact evaluation seeks to measure the impact of the 
interventions on the health, education, and economic well-being of vulnerable children and their families. 
This report shares results from the 2017 survey to establish initial indicators for background characteristics, 
primary and secondary outcomes, and exposure to project or similar interventions in both the program and 
control groups.
Research Questions and Methods
The ISVP evaluation is a prospective, cluster-randomized, controlled trial design, using a difference-in￾differences (DID) estimation strategy with fixed-effects modeling to evaluate the impact on economic, health,
and education outcomes. Administrative sectors were randomly assigned to study groups receiving different 
intervention packages: (1) a household economic strengthening (HES-only) group, which provides a core 
platform of financial interventions; (2) a full ISVP group, which supplements the core platform of HES 
interventions with health, education, and skill-building services; and (3) a control group, receiving no ISVP 
interventions. The final number of assigned sectors ranged from 22 to 24: (1) full ISVP program, 23 sectors;
(2) HES-only activities, 22 sectors; and (3) controls, 24 sectors.
The evaluation seeks to answer three primary research questions:
(1) Does the full package of Twiyubake services (i.e., full ISVP) strengthen household economic status and 
provide additional support to motivate economically strengthened families to realize health and education 
benefits?
(2) Can HES-only activities provide the economic stability for households to access health and education 
services and improve individual health and educational well-being?
(3) Which approach is more cost-effective, full ISVP or HES-only?
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 17
Initial household survey data was collected from April 2017 to July 2017, and September 2017, and will be 
collected again at end line (August 2018). Table 1 depicts the primary and secondary outcomes of interest. 
Table 1 below depicts key primary and secondary outcomes.
Table 1. Key primary and secondary outcomes of interest
Primary Outcomes Secondary Outcomes
• Economic strengthening: Percentage of 
households (HHs) with moderate or severe 
household hunger
• Education: Percentage of 13- to 17-year￾olds with regular school attendance
(binary indicator for no missed days during 
last week of instruction)
• Health: Percentage of children 0–17 years 
old whose caregiver knows the child’s HIV 
status
• HH consumption patterns
• Economic outcomes (individual)
• HH decision-making and gender-related 
attitudes and behaviors
• Use of health and social services
• Nutrition knowledge and behavior
• Early childhood development
• Education
Program group households consisted of program beneficiaries sampled from beneficiary lists. Control group
households consisted of vulnerable households sampled from the Government of Rwanda’s Most Vulnerable 
Children list. Within each selected household, the following members were selected for the study: (1) all 
eligible primary caretakers of children ages 0 to 17 years old, (2) the primary ISLG member of an integrated 
savings and lending group (ISLG) (in the program groups), (3) one randomly selected 10- to 17-year-old. 
Four key questionnaires (Household, Caregiver, Youth, and ISLG questionnaires) were used for the 
household and individual data collection. The final household sample sizes were 1,428 for full ISVP, 1,309 
for HES-only, and 1,216 for control.
Analysis
Quantitative methods were used to compare data on the primary outcome indicators in the full ISVP project 
intervention areas to that in the HES-only intervention areas and to the control areas, using STATA 14.1. 
(College Station, TX). Analysis in this report includes basic descriptive frequencies and some statistical testing 
of mean differences to test for balance across the three groups. To help inform the program implementation, 
we have also included some testing within study groups and examined some associations between selected 
variables based on feedback from USAID/Rwanda and the ISVP project. The difference in means between 
treatment and control groups was tested using a regression model for all key indicators and a number of 
sociodemographic household and individual variables.
Results
A summary of primary outcomes is provided in Table 2. With respect to economic well-being, nearly three￾quarters of households were able to pay for unexpected expenses. The percentage of households with any 
savings was higher in the program groups (85.6% in the full ISVP group and 77.2% in the HES-only group) 
than in the control group (30.8%). However, the percent of households reporting moderate or severe 
household hunger was high across all groups (65.5%–78.2%).
18 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Key child health and nutrition outcomes were poor across all study groups for infant and young child feeding 
(IYCF) practices and HIV testing. Only 16.1 percent–17.2 percent of caregivers reported their child (ages 6–
59 months) ate from four or more food groups in the past 24 hours, and 9.4 percent–14.2 percent reported 
their child had the minimum recommended meal frequency in the same time frame. The percentage of 
caregivers who knew their child’s HIV status ranged from 16.9 percent in the control group to 30.0 percent
in the full ISVP group. Birth registration outcomes were encouraging, with 79.3 percent (HES-only group) to 
85 percent (full-ISVP and control groups) of caregivers reporting they had registered the birth of their 
children.
School attendance reports were poor: 55.8 percent in the HES-only group, 60.7 percent in the control group,
and 64.1 percent in the full ISVP group. Attendance rates were highest among 7- to 12-year-olds (66.3%–
71.2%). Most children were in primary school and progressed within primary school in the past year: 81.4
percent to 85.5 percent of girls and 81.4 percent to 83.4 percent of boys. A much lower percent of children 
progressed from primary to secondary school: 4.5 percent to 9.0 percent of girls and 3.1 percent to 7.3
percent of boys. A similarly small percent progressed within secondary school: 4.4 percent to 6.3 percent of 
girls and 3.0 percent to 4.4 percent of boys. In the 13- to 17-year-old age group, we found a similar pattern: 
most children who progressed in the past year did so within primary school (52%), with 9.6 percent
progressing from primary to secondary school and 8.4 percent progressing within secondary school. 
Secondary school regular attendance (defined as not having missed classes in the last week of instruction) for 
13- to 17-year-old youth, a measure for age-appropriate schooling, was lowest in the HES-only group at 9.6
percent; 13- to 17-year-old youth in the full ISVP group (17.7%) were more likely than those in HES-only to 
have regular attendance; and regular attendance was also higher in the control group (16.1%) compared to 
HES-only.
With respect to health services, caregivers indicated that 61 percent–71 percent of children received some 
type of growth monitoring in the past 12 months. Caregivers sought treatment for children with fever and 
diarrhea. Treatment seeking was lowest in the HES-only group (60.8% for fever and 42.8% for diarrhea) 
compared to the full ISVP group (72.5% and 75.3%, respectively) and the control group (76.3% and 69.9%, 
respectively). More caregivers in the full ISVP group (63.1%) reported having had an HIV test in the past 12 
months and knowing their test results compared to caregivers in the HES-only (42.4%) and control (39.9%)
groups.
Results showed a trend of highest decision-making power among HES-only female caregivers. Eighty-four 
percent of female caregivers in the HES-only group reported participating in six types of household decisions 
compared to 77.9 percent (p<0.05) for full ISVP and 76.7 percent for control groups. Statistically significant 
differences (p<0.05) were found between HES-only and control groups in the percentage of female 
caregivers participating in decision making for four of the six household decisions: caregivers’ own health 
care, children’s healthcare, children’s food, and early child education. 
There were no significant differences between groups among caregivers in financial decision making in the 
household. Among married female caregivers who received cash earnings, no statistically significant 
differences between study groups were found with respect to decision making about how to use the wife’s 
earnings. The majority decided how to use their earnings either jointly with their husbands (55.2% to 61.8%) 
or mainly on their own (28.3% to 35.1%). The majority also jointly decided with their husbands how to use 
the husband’s earnings (59.2% to 63.0%); a minority reported that their husbands mainly decided (19.8% to 
21.7%).
The HES-only (25.6%) group had a higher overall proportion of any reported physical or sexual violence than 
the full ISVP (18.7%) and control (19.8%) groups; however, these differences were not statistically 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 19
significant. Within the full ISVP and the control groups, statistically significant differences were found for 
female caregivers experiencing any intimate partner violence (IPV) based on decisions about a woman’s cash 
earnings: reports of IPV were lower for respondents and husbands who jointly decided how to use a 
respondent’s earnings compared to when only one spouse made the decision. Similarly, joint decision making 
about a husband’s cash earnings was associated with lower reports of IPV. Differences in reported IPV 
within the HES-only group were not statistically significant with respect to decision making about either 
partner’s earnings.
The gender equitable men (GEM) scale was used to measure gender-equitable beliefs among youth ages 13–
17 years. The GEM scale scores range from eight to 24, with higher scores indicating more gender-equitable 
beliefs. The mean composite GEM scale scores were similar across groups, ranging from 14.1 (HES-only) to 
16.0 (full ISVP). Among youth ages 13–17 years, those enrolled in school had more gender-equitable views 
than those not enrolled. In the full ISVP group, youth exposed to a program that discusses positive 
masculinity reported less gender-equitable beliefs. 
Exposure to Interventions
Households were asked about their use of various services and activities known to be offered by the program 
in one or both program groups, ranging from community savings groups to training on early childhood 
development and information on HIV testing and treatment. There was a clear trend of greater exposure to 
services and activities offered by the program in the full ISVP group, followed by HES-only, and then 
control. For example, 84.6 percent of households in full ISVP reported participating in a community savings
and lending group, followed by 67.2 percent of households in HES-only, and 17.6 percent in the control
group. Additionally, exposure to training and early childhood development was reported by 42.2 percent of 
full ISVPs households compared to 31.8 percent of household in the HES-only group and 22.7 percent in the 
control group.
Balance Testing
Balance was tested across 89 outcomes for program and control groups using a regression model. Thirty￾three percent of these were statistically significant (p<0.05), indicating imbalance across study groups.
Discussion
The ISVP impact evaluation seeks to measure the impact of the interventions on the health, education, and 
economic well-being of vulnerable children and their families. We established initial indicators for 
background characteristics, primary and secondary outcomes, and exposure to project or similar interventions 
in both the treatment and control groups.
Balance Across Evaluation Groups
Balance tests showed imbalance across groups in the three primary study outcomes. Household hunger, 
regular attendance of secondary school among 13- to 17-year-olds, and caregivers knowing their child’s HIV 
status all had statistically significant differences across groups. Imbalance was most common for outcomes 
related to child health; economic status; and basic demographics, such as household size and caregiver 
characteristics.
Implications for the Impact Evaluation
20 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Comparability of Program and Control Groups
Results from balance testing suggest that the control group was different from the program groups, and the 
program groups were different from each other in some systematic ways. This was unsurprising, considering 
the sampling methods. In addition, the program was rolled out before baseline data collection, so some 
differences between full ISVP, HES-only, and control groups was expected at this time; although, on a short￾term outcome level.
Overall, the results of the balance testing reinforced the decision to employ a DID with fixed-effects 
approach for estimating program effects. This strategy will control for both observed and unobserved time 
invariant differences between program and control areas and will include individual level observed 
background characteristics in the statistical models to account for their potential impact on the outcome 
indicators. DID analysis also allows for differences in outcome indicators at baseline when estimating project 
impact.
Contamination or Spillover
Since the beginning of the evaluation, we learned that several programs were being rolled out either by 
Twiyubake or other implementing partners in study sectors; these were not being rolled out in the same way 
by the same partners and in all study areas. For example, PEPFAR Determined, Resilient, Empowered, 
AIDS-Free, Mentored and Safe (DREAMS) activities were being rolled out in seven of the study sectors, 
potentially affecting 0.7 percent of control households; HES-only and full ISVP beneficiaries will not be 
enrolled in the program. We will need to add questions at end line to better assess whether household 
members participated in these other programs, particularly in the control areas. Considering the large 
percentage of potentially affected HES-only households, the ability of the evaluation to detect differences 
between full ISVP and HES-only and between HES-only and control may be hampered.
Selection Bias and Confounding 
Household and youth survey response rates suggest that there may have been selective survey participation 
among the eligible population targeted for the study. There were statistically significant differences between 
groups for response rates, with full ISVP (92.4%) and HES-only (85.9%) groups at higher household 
response rates than the control group (81.0%) (p<0.01), and full-ISVP group responses rates higher than the 
HES-only group (p<0.01). Youth response rates were significantly lower for the full-ISVP group (78.5%) 
compared to both HES-only (81.9%) (p<0.05) and control groups (83.5%) (p<0.05). Since the study groups
were found to be imbalanced, we will control for observable factors in the final analysis.
Conclusions
Initial values and balance testing for background characteristics, the primary and secondary outcomes of 
interest, and exposure to project or similar interventions in both the intervention and comparison groups
suggest that the program and control groups are different from each other in some systematic ways.
Observable factors will be controlled for in the final analysis to account for this imbalance. Potential for 
contamination in the study areas was also identified. This needs to be considered in revisions of surveys and 
analysis at end line because of the potential influence of any contamination on key outcomes.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 21
Next Steps
End line data collection is planned for August 2018. At that time, households will have been receiving 
services for approximately two years. The same households interviewed for this report will be interviewed at 
end line, and a DID approach will be used to compare pre and postintervention differences between project 
and control groups. Key informant interviews with district-level officials and ISVP program staff will also be 
conducted to assess whether any significant changes have occurred in the study areas over time that may have 
affected implementation of the intervention and outcomes relevant to the evaluation.
22 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 2. Summary of key outcomes by study group
Indicator Full ISVP N HES-only N Control N
Population Characteristics (%, except where noted)
HH
 HH population per study group 7,866 6,825 6,229
 HH members, n (mean) 5.5**++ 5.2 5.0
 Wealth quintiles 1,428 1,309 1,216
 Lowest 19.4 23.2 19.6
 Second, 23.3 23.5 18.5
 Middle 19.1 19.6 20.3
 Fourth 21.3 18.8 19.9
 Highest 16.9 14.9 21.6
 Access to electricity 9.0 7.1 10.7
 Urbanicity (HH in areas classified as urban) 0.4*+ 4.9 6.5
 HHs with any improved, nonshared toilet/latrine 
facility 17.0**+ 12.6 13.3
 HHs with any improved source of drinking water 79.1++ 67.0 73.3
Caregiver characteristics
 Marital status 1,444 1,327 1,213
 Married 38.9* 38.6* 46.1
 Cohabitating 12.9* 11.3** 17.6
 Divorced/separated 9.1 12.4 8.2
 Widowed 26.6 25.8 19.6
 Never married 12.4 11.8 8.4
 Highest level of education completed 1,444 1,327 1,213
 None/preprimary 37.2 40 35.4
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 23
 Primary 58.2 56.2 57.9
 Secondary 3.6* 2.1*** 5.4
 Technical and vocational education and 
training (TVET) or higher 1.0 1.6 1.2
Economic Status
 Ability to pay unexpected HH expenses 69.2 468 68.1 378 75.7 452
 HHs with moderate or severe hunger 78.2** 1,405 71.6 1,289 65.5 1,192
 Daily consumption shares per capita, mean RWF 325 1,428 310.6 1,309 325.6 1,216
Consumption in each category,
Food and beverages 49.5*** 51.6 54.2
Housing 8.7**+++ 10.8 10.5
Clothing and footwear 1.9 1.9 1.7
Energy 19.4 19.9* 17.4
Transport 1.5 1.3 1.4
Water 2.2 2.1 2.6
Education 4.2*** 2.2 2.2
Health 6.4**+ 5.1 4.7
Personal care 3.0++ 2.5 2.6
ICT 1.8*+ 1.2 1.2
Other 1.5 1.3 1.4
 HH with any savings 85.6***++ 1,428 77.2*** 1,309 30.8 1,216
 Youth with improved employment in the past 6 
months 0.3 1,100 0.8 1,162 0.5 719
Child Health and Nutrition Status
 Caregiver’s knowledge of child’s HIV status 30.0***+++ 4210 18.8 3,640 16.9 3,252
 Undernourishment among children (MUAC <125mm) 3.1 746 5.9* 685 2.4 650
 IYCF practices for children 6–59 months old 746 685 650
24 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
 Among breastfed children
 Minimum meal frequency 12.9** 19.8 23.4
 Both 4+ food groups and minimum meal 
frequency 3.2*+ 10 7.7
 Among non-breastfed children
 Minimum meal frequency 6.6 4.6 7.2
 With 3 IYCF practices 0.3 0.1* 1.5
 Among all children
 Minimum meal frequency 9.4 10.8 14.2
 With 3 IYCF practices 1.6*+ 4.1 4.1
 Child too sick to participate in activities in last two 
weeks 22.2 4,210 21.4 3,640 18.6 3,252
 Birth registration at sector level 85.2 4,210 79.3 3,640 84.8 3,252
Education
 Children ages 7–17 who did not miss any school days 
in the last week of instruction 66.0 3385 60.3 2,903 65.6 2,530
 Children who progressed in school during the last 
year 90.2 2,311 83.8 1,961 89.0 1,698
 Progress at various levels of schooling among 13- to 
17-year-old youth**+++ 1250 1,100 970
 Within primary 55.7 50.6 52.2
 Primary to secondary 13.5
+ 6.0 9.3
 Within secondary 7.7 5.5 9.2
 Secondary to TVET/university 0.1 0.0 0.3
 Did not progress 3.6+ 6.3** 3.0
 Not enrolled this or last year 19.4
*++ 31.5 26.0
 Secondary school enrollment among 13- to 17-year￾old youth 22.5+ 1,250 12.7 1,100 19.4 970
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 25
 Regular school attendance among enrolled 13- to 17-
year-old secondary school youth 17.7+ 1,250 9.6* 1,100 16.1 970
Child Protection
 Caregivers who agreed that harsh physical 
punishment is an appropriate means of discipline 46.3*+ 1444 36.8 1,327 39.5 1,213
Intimate Partner Violence
 Married female caregivers who reported any physical 
or sexual violence 18.7 761 25.6 665 19.9 720
 Female married caregivers who reported any 
physical violence 14.0 761 21.0 665 14.7 720
 Female married caregivers who reported any sexual 
violence 10.7 761 11.8 665 9.7 720
HH Decision Making
 Caregiver report of household decision making 1,391 1,273 1,150
 Female caregivers participating in all six types3 of 
important HH decisions 77.9+ 84.3* 76.7
 Female caregivers participating in none of the 
important HH decisions3 1.7 0.5 1.9
Among currently married women who received cash 
earnings, person who decided how wife's cash earnings 
were used 584
 Mainly wife 35.1 29.7 28.3
 Wife and husband jointly 55.2 61.8 61.4
 Mainly husband 9.0 8.0 10.0
 Other 0.8 0.5 0.3
Among currently married women whose husbands 
received cash earnings, person who decided how 
husband's cash earnings were used 782 694 727
 Mainly wife 18.3 17.6 14.2
 Wife and husband jointly 59.3 60.6 63.0
26 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
 Mainly husband 20.9 19.8 21.7
 Other 1.4 2.0 1.0
Youth Attitudes Towards Gender
 Attitudes towards gender among youth (mean,
composite GEM score) 16.0 464 15.1 390 15.6 379
Health Service Use
 Children 0–59 months who received any growth 
monitoring at home or a health center in the past 12 
months 71.1 825 60.9 737 66.9 722
 Number of growth monitoring events among children 
0–59 months at home or at a health center in the past 12 
months 586 490 473
 1–2 times 33.2 32.9 35.1
 3–5 times 37.8 23.7 34.7
 6–10 times 13.2 21 14.2
 More than 10 times 13.5 19.5 14.3
 Children 0–59 months who had fever within two 
weeks of the interview 28.7 825 24.3 737 23.7 722
 Children 0–59 months who had a fever and whose 
caregiver sought treatment for their fever within two 
weeks of the interview 72.5 220 60.8 165 76.3 183
 Children 0–59 months who had diarrhea within two 
weeks of the interview 19.3 825 13.4 737 15.6 722
 Children 0–59 months who had a diarrhea and whose 
caregiver sought treatment for their diarrhea within two 
weeks of the interview 75.3 143** 42.8* 93*** 69.9 106
 Youth 10–17 years old who tested for HIV within the 
past 12 months and knew their HIV status 19.3 1,100 14.6 1,162 10.6 719
 Caregivers who reported having had an HIV test 89.9**+++ 1444 79.9 1,327 79.7 1,213
 Mean time to reach health services, minutes 1,444 1,327 1,213
 Child health services 60.7 64.5 59.2
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 27
 HIV testing services 62.7 64.8 58.6
 Child growth monitoring services 58.5 64.5 56.2
Youth HIV/AIDS Knowledge and Prevention Behaviors
 Knowledge of HIV prevention strategies among 10- to 
17-year-old youth 78.5 826 77.4 867 79.9 523
 Condom use at last sexual encounter among 10- to 
17-year-old youth (32.5) 39 (26.7) 44 2 12
Early Childhood Development
 Attendance of early childhood development 
program among children 36–59 months 38.2***+++ 364 13.6 358 11.6 295
 Caregiver report of HH member older than 15 years 
engaging in four or more stimulating activities with child 
in the past week 33.7 825 32 737 32.3 722
 Caregivers who correctly answered nutrition test 
questions 1,444 1,327 1,213
 Knew how long a baby should receive only
breastmilk 80.5 75.6 80.3
 Knew that a sick baby or child should be fed 
the same amount of food 15.0 15.4 10.7
 Knew 2 or more key ways to prevent 
undernutrition among infants <6 months 24.6 26.1 29.3
 Knew 2 or more key ways to prevent 
undernutrition among children 6–23 months 34.5 38.5 33.7
 Knew 2 or more key moments when you need 
to wash your hands 80.8 81.6 81.2
 Knew 2 or more important ways a pregnant 
woman should eat 48.0 52.3 45.7
 HH member older than 15 years who engaged in any 
stimulating activity with child 81.9 825 79.4 737 81.6 722
NOTE: The number of observations varies within groups because of skip patterns and/or missing responses on key indicators
GEM, gender equitable men; HH, household; ICT, information and communications technology; IYCF, ; MUAC, mid-upper arm circumference; RWF, Rwandan 
franc; TVET, technical and vocational education and training
28 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Parentheses indicate N = 25–49
2N <25
3 Decisions include: woman’s own health care, children’s health care, whether child attends early childhood development services, minor household decisions, 
and major household decisions
*versus control, p<0.05
**versus control, p<0.01
***versus control, p<0.001
+versus HES-only, p<0.05
++versus HES-only, p<0.01
+++versus HES-only, p<0.001
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 29
Background
Country Context
Rwanda has achieved remarkable progress in economic growth, poverty reduction, and HIV prevention over 
the past decade. With a gross domestic product per capita nearly tripling, from US$211 in 2001 to US$719 in 
2014, the percentage of the population living below the national poverty line decreased from 56.7 percent to 
39.1 percent in 2013 (NISR, 2015). Prevalence of HIV has similarly decreased, from five percent of the 
population in 2001 to about three percent of the population in 2016 (World Bank, 2017). However, 
significant challenges to health and development remain, particularly among vulnerable populations, such as 
OVCs, PLHAs, out-of-school youth, and very poor or female-headed households.
While little data exists on the health outcomes of vulnerable populations, it is known that poverty and 
HIV/AIDS limit the capacity of Rwandan families and communities to support their most vulnerable 
members, and that youth and women are disproportionately affected by the HIV/AIDs epidemic. Twenty￾five percent of Rwandan households have foster or orphan children. In 2008, nearly one-fifth of orphans lost 
parents due to HIV/AIDS (Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) , 2016; Rwanda National AIDS Control 
Commission [CNLS]), 2009). School attendance was lower among OVC (83%) than among children with 
both parents (95%), and just 12.6 percent of households with OVC received any type of external support in 
2005 (DHS, 2016; CNLS, 2009). Moreover, among adult PLHA, 20.4 percent of PLHA were unemployed in 
2008, and 59 percent had no food for at least one day (CNLS, 2009).
The Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations (ISVP) Project, known locally as the Twiyubake Program, 
is conducted by Global Communities (GC), international consortium partners AVSI, PLAN-International 
and Partners in Health, and Rwandan CSOs. Global Communities and partners work within the Rwandan 
MOH and MIGEPROF framework. The overarching goal of the ISVP project is to improve the protection 
of vulnerable populations against adverse circumstances, thus contributing to reducing the risk and impact of 
HIV/AIDS and other health conditions for the most vulnerable populations.
MEASURE Evaluation, with the support of USAID/Rwanda, is conducting an impact evaluation of the 
ISVP Project. A prospective, cluster-randomized controlled trial will be used to measure the impact of a 
comprehensive package of program activities upon relevant outcomes of children, adolescents, and 
caregivers. Specifically, the evaluation will investigate the extent to which Household Economic 
Strengthening (HES-Only) interventions, compared to full ISVP interventions in terms of health and 
educational services and improved health, education, and economic empowerment of participants. The 
evaluation determined the relative contribution of HES-only efforts to achieve the project’s objectives and 
goals. The evaluation will also examine the cost-effectiveness of the two approaches. The results of the 
impact evaluation will contribute to the evidence base on support to vulnerable populations and their families 
in HES-only interventions and informed policy formation and subsequent program designs beyond the ISVP 
project. 
ISVP Project Strategy
The foundation of the Twiyubake strategy are four core HES-only interventions: (1) ISLGs, (2) financial 
education, (3) micro (one owner and fewer than 5 employees), and small (more than 5 employees) enterprises 
and cooperatives, and (4) activities to improve intra-household communication and joint economic decision
making. Locally formed ISLGs provide the opportunity for members to grow household assets and access 
30 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
emergency funds. Financial education for the ISLG members teaches money management skills, such as 
savings, debt management, budgeting, bank services, and financial negotiation. The development of micro 
and small enterprises and cooperatives is promoted to ISLG members who receive instructional materials on 
basic market analysis and resources.
Along with these four core HES-only interventions, Twiyubake is implementing and promoting several
additional activities. Using a case-management approach, Twiyubake works with families to identify 
economic, health, and education needs, then promote or refer members to services, as appropriate. Some of 
these additional activities include health promotion and referrals, early childhood development, sexual and 
reproductive health education, and youth vocational training, as well as education support packages. The 
project aims to address four intermediate results: (1) increased capacity of families and communities to 
provide healthy, nurturing, and engaging environments for vulnerable children less than 5 years old; (2) family 
economic vulnerability decreased; (3) increased knowledge, attitudes, skills, aspirations and confidence of 
adolescents transitioning to adulthood; and (4) increased capacity of communities to provide essential 
preventative and protective services to vulnerable families and children.
Setting
The ISVP project is ongoing in 12 districts in Rwanda (Figure 1), and 75 sectors within those districts. Within 
each selected sector, all cells and villages will be targeted over the life of the project. The districts were chosen 
due to their high HIV prevalence. The selection of the 75 sectors was based on a mapping of other USAID￾funded projects with OVC; those with little or no USAID investment were selected. 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 31
Figure 1. Improved services for vulnerable population implementation districts
Underlying Development Hypothesis and Theory of Change
The ISVP theory of change (Figure 2) is grounded in the assumption that health, economic empowerment, 
and education are intertwined, and that these factors must be comprehensively addressed to both reduce the 
risk and mitigate the impact of HIV/AIDS and other adverse health outcomes. Household economic 
strengthening, provided through a central platform of financial interventions, equips participating households 
with the requisite knowledge, resources, and stability to act upon the advice and referrals provided by 
additional health and educational services. Thus, the ISVP program promotes the health and well-being of 
vulnerable populations by increasing the capacity of households and communities to support the health, 
education, and economic growth of OVCs, PLHAs, and other vulnerable members.
The HES-only interventions promote economic empowerment, helping households to budget, save, and 
target consumption to promote the health and education of vulnerable members.
Three additional intervention types, depending on the study group, supplement the HES-only core activities: 
(1) household interventions, including health promotion, and hygiene and sanitation education; (2) early 
childhood development interventions, including parenting education and early childhood education; and (3) 
adolescent interventions, including education, work readiness, youth ISLGs, and sexual and reproductive 
health and gender-based violence (GBV) education and referrals. By matching needs to services using a case-
32 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
management approach, ISVP provides participating households with individualized health and educational 
services. 
GBV, gender-based violence; ISLG, integrated savings and lending groups; SRH, sexual and reproductive health; WASH, 
water, sanitation, and hygiene
Research Objectives and Questions
This impact evaluation seeks to measure the impact of the ISVP Project interventions on the health, 
education and economic well-being of vulnerable children and their families. The objectives of the impact 
evaluation’s objectives are to answer these research questions: 
1. Does the full package of Twiyubake services (henceforth, full ISVP) strengthen household economic 
status and provide the additional support to motivate economically strengthened families to realize 
health and education benefits?
2. Can HES-only activities provide the economic stability for households to access health and education 
services and improve individual health and educational well-being?
3. Which of these two approaches is more cost-effective?
To answer the above research questions, primary and secondary outcomes will be measured to provide 
insight into the effects of the program along the causal pathway. The primary project outcomes cover three 
substantive areas: economic strengthening or resilience, health, and education. Table 3 depicts the primary 
and secondary outcomes of the evaluation. These outcomes were selected in consultation with 
Figure 2. Theory of change for the Twiyubake/ISVP Project
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 33
USAID/Rwanda and the ISVP program, with the rationale that they were essential intermediate outcomes 
and impacts that ISVP anticipated to influence over the study period.
Table 3. Primary and secondary outcomes for the evaluation
Primary Outcomes Secondary Outcomes
• Economic Strengthening: Percentage of 
households with moderate or severe 
household hunger, utilizing a hunger scale 
created by FANTA (Food and Nutrition 
Technical Assistance project) and used in the 
USAID Feed the Future project.
• Education: Percentage of 13- to 17-year-olds 
with regular school attendance, a binary 
indicator for no missed days during the last 
week of instruction.
• Health: Percentage of children ages 0–17
years whose caregiver knew their HIV status.
• Household consumption patterns
• Individual economic outcomes
• Household decision making and gender￾related attitudes and behaviors
• Use of health and social services
• Nutrition knowledge and behavior
• Youth HIV knowledge and reproductive 
health 
• Early childhood development
• Education 
In response to PEPFAR outcome monitoring requirements for OVC programs, collection of the nine 
PEPFAR Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research (MER) OVC Essential Indicators (MEASURE Evaluation, 
2015) for outcome monitoring are embedded in the impact evaluation data collection tools. See Appendix B 
for a complete list of these nine indicators. 
Cost-effectiveness will be assessed at end line by linking cost data provided by the program with effectiveness 
data from the DID analysis to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
34 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
METHODS
EVALUATION DESIGN
The ISVP project has a target of reaching 50,000 households. To achieve this target, three cohorts from 75 
sectors were enrolled in the project. Twiyubake contracted with local Rwandan partner organizations (RPOs) 
to enroll and support three household cohorts from the selected 75 Sectors. A prospective, cluster￾randomized, controlled trial design, using a DID-estimation strategy with fixed-effects modeling, is being 
used to evaluate the impact for cohort 1 on economic, health, and education outcomes:
a. Full ISVP program vs. HES-only program
b. Full ISP vs. control 
c. HES-only program vs. control
Two rounds of population-based survey data collection were proposed. Initial data collection occurred from 
April 2017–July, and September 2017. End line data collection is planned to occur during late 2018. Data 
collection at the initial time point occurred with sampled households from enrolled beneficiary lists in 
intervention sectors. The control group was randomly sampled from households eligible for the program, but 
who were living in sectors assigned to the control group. Households surveyed at baseline will be tracked and 
surveyed at end line in 2018. See Appendix B for the complete list of sectors and study group assignments. 
Study Population
The study program group’s population was composed of two primary groups. The first group was composed 
of economically vulnerable households who were identified for participation based on their inclusion in the 
most vulnerable children list (MVC) developed by the National Commission for Children (NCC) in 
partnership with OVC partners. The second group comprised OVCs and PLHAs identified by service 
providers as eligible for household recruitment because they would benefit from participation in the program. 
Within both groups, heads of households, primary caregivers of children less than 18 years old, and youth 
ages 10–17 years were eligible to participate.
In each program area, if the number of children on the MVC list was greater than the target number of 
beneficiaries for that area, ISVP prioritized children based on guidelines from the NCC, including a 
vulnerability assessment procedure carried out with local leaders.
The control area population comprised households on the MVC list, without further prioritization.
There were no exclusion criteria for the program area; any household on the program beneficiary list as of 
July 2016 could be sampled for the evaluation. For the control area, households without a child on the MVC 
list were excluded.
Sampling Frame and Design
To accurately capture program impact, we selected samples of sufficient size to achieve the primary
objectives of the study. Sample size estimation for this survey was motivated by the need to detect certain 
potential differences in population values for key indicators between program and control areas at end line. 
There were two key indicators:
• Indicator 1: Percentage of 13- to 17-year-olds with regular school attendance
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 35
• Indicator 2: Percentage of households with moderate or severe hunger.
In Table 4, we indicate the sampling goals for each of these key indicators. For instance, the goal for indicator 
one was to detect a difference in the population value of 15.1 percentage points (from 13 percent in the 
control population to 28.1 percent in the full ISVP populations) at follow up. 
Table 4. Sampling goals
Indicators Study Populations, %
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Indicator 1 28.1 20.0 13.0
Indicator 2 24.9 33.6 43.0
Assuming power equal to 0.8 and alpha equal to 0.05 to achieve the sampling goals required, a sample of 
about 1,380 households in each domain (full ISVP, HES-only, and control) will be necessary at end line. 
Given the longitudinal design of the data, having 1,380 households per domain at end line requires some 
accommodation for attrition from baseline to end line. Assuming attrition of around eight percent, we would,
therefore, have to select 1500 households in each domain at baseline. Thus, we had to select an overall 
sample of 4500 households at baseline.
The study area was split into different study groups. This was accomplished via randomization. Specifically, a 
draw from the uniform distribution was made for each of the 99 sectors contained within the study area. 
They were then assigned to study groups per their rank according to their draw from the uniform 
distribution. A total of 69 sectors were randomly selected and distributed across domains: (1) full ISVP
program, 23 sectors; (2) HES-only activities, 22 sectors; and (3) controls, 24 sectors.
Within each selected household, the following members were selected for the study: (1) all eligible primary 
caretakers of children ages 0 to 17 years old, (2) the primary ISLG member (in the program groups), (2) one 
randomly selected 10- to 17-year-old.
A detailed explanation of the sampling methods is provided in Appendix A, covering calculation of sample 
sizes and the creation of the sampling frame. The final household sample sizes were 1,428 for full ISVP, 
1,309 for HES-only, and 1,216 for control. The same households will be interviewed at end line; no 
additional households will be added.
Study Procedures
Data were collected for the baseline evaluation through in-person interviews, with participant responses 
recorded on Microsoft Windows tablets. Data collectors were trained to administer the surveys and protect
human subjects. Four questionnaires, household, caregiver, youth, and ISLG questionnaires, were used for 
the household and individual data collection. The household and caregiver questionnaires were administered 
to the primary caregivers of children under 18 years of age in the household. The youth questionnaire was 
administered to one randomly selected child or youth in the household between the ages of 10 and 17 years.
The ISLG questionnaire was administered to the main household member (adult or youth) who regularly 
attended the ISLG group meetings. The survey and consent forms were created in English and later 
translated into Kinyarwanda for implementation (see Appendix E for questionnaires used for data collection).
The questionnaires and information collected were as follows:
Household questionnaire was designed to capture demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the
household, including the household roster, household consumption, savings and loans, housing 
36 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
characteristics, and information on participation of household members in social or development 
programs. 
Caregiver questionnaire was designed to record demographic characteristics of the caregiver, health status 
of caregiver, household decision making, and caregiver’s use of services. Additional questions about the 
caregiver’s children included health and well-being of children less than 10 years old, including education, 
recent illness, disabilities, early childhood development, psychosocial well-being, and food consumption. 
For female caregivers, the tool also covered experiences of IPV.
Youth questionnaire collected individual information on education, employment, chores, disabilities, 
psychosocial well-being, sexual and reproductive knowledge, attitudes towards gender, and use of health 
and social services. 
ISLG questionnaire covered savings and loan group participation, and aspects of how the ISLG group 
functioned, such as loan repayment terms and standard contribution amounts.
Ethical Considerations
Human subject review of the complete study protocol and data collection instruments from the Rwanda 
National Ethics Committee and UNC-Chapel Hill Institutional Review Board (IRB) was obtained before data 
collection. In addition, the team obtained a survey visa from the National Institute of Statistics Rwanda 
(NISR). For details on data management and security and confidentiality, see Appendix A.
The study obtained informed consent from all participants. Special population considerations were necessary.
For adolescents, parental or caretaker consent was required in addition to the consent of the participating 
adolescent. For female caregivers, to administer questions on IPV, the team followed the World Health 
Organization’s (2001) ethical and safety recommendations for research on IPV.
Analysis
Quantitative methods were used to compare data on the key outcome indicators in the full ISVP project 
intervention areas to that in the HES-only intervention areas and to the control areas, utilizing STATA 14.1.
(College Station, TX). Analyses in this baseline report included basic descriptive frequencies and some 
statistical testing of mean differences to test for balance across the three groups. The difference in means 
between treatment and control groups was tested using a regression model for all key indicators and a 
number of sociodemographic household and individual variables. Indicators are reported as either 
percentages or means and weighted using the sampling weights.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 37
RESULTS
Response Rates
Table 5 shows the response rates across the study groups. The overall response rate for the youth was 81.0
percent. The overall household response rate was 86.5 percent. Caregiver and ISLG questionnaire response 
rates were high, however, at 97.7 percent overall for both; these did not vary by group. There was a 
statistically significant difference between groups for household questionnaire response—92.4 percent of full 
ISVP listed household responses versus 85.9 percent in HES-only (p<0.001); HES-only versus 81.0 percent 
control (p<0.001); and, full-ISVP versus HES-only (p<0.001). There was also a statistically significant 
difference between full ISVP and the other study groups for youth survey responses, with 78.5 percent of 
selected youth responding from the full ISVP group versus 81.9 percent in HES-only (p<0.05) and 83.5
percent in the controls (p<0.01). 
Table 5. Response to household, caregiver, ISLG member, and youth questionnaires
Result Full ISVP HES￾only Control Total
Household questionnaire
Selected, n 1,545 1,523 1,501 4,569
Not found/absent, n 46 61 131 238
Refused/incomplete, n 19 18 30 67
Ineligible, n1 52 135 124 311
Interviewed, n 1,428 1,309 1,216 3,953
Response rate, % 92.4**++ 85.9** 81.0 86.5
Caregiver questionnaire
Eligible, n 1,478 1,354 1,247 4,079
Not found/absent, n 12 2 10 24
Refused/incomplete, n 22 25 24 71
Interviewed, n 1,444 1,327 1,213 3,984
Response rate, % 97.7 98.0 97.3 97.7
ISLG questionnaire
Eligible, n 1,428 1,309 237 2,974
Not found/absent, n 5 1 2 8
Refused/incomplete, n 26 27 8 61
Interviewed, n 1,397 1,281 227 2,905
Response rate, % 97.8 97.9 95.8 97.7
Youth questionnaire
Eligible, n 1,402 1,419 861 3,682
Not found/absent, n 204 176 97 477
Refused/incomplete, n 98 81 45 224
Interviewed, n 1,100 1,162 719 2,981
Response rate, % 78.5*+ 81.9 83.5 81.0
38 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
1
Includes the following: program households that did not have a child ages 0–17 years 
living in the household; program households that were no longer in Twiyubake; control 
households that were in Twiyubake.
*p<0.01, **p<0.001 versus controls
+p<0.05, ++p<0.001 versus HES-only
Population Characteristics
Household
Over half of the household members across study groups were female (Table 6). The full ISVP study group
had a significantly higher proportion of female versus male household members than both the HES-only and 
control groups (p<0.05). Both intervention groups had significantly smaller proportions of children under 
age one year than the control group (p<0.05). Additionally, the full ISVP group households had significantly 
fewer children in the 1- to 4-year-old age group compared to the control group (p<0.05).
Table 6. Household population characteristics, per household survey
Background 
characteristic
Full ISVP HES-only Control Total
M
(N=3,5
34) F Total M F Total M F Total M F
Age, years
<1 1.9 1.8 1.9* 2.0 1.1 1.6* 2.9 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.1
1–4 9.1 8.0 8.5* 9.6 8.8 9.2 11.2 10.0 10.5 10.6 9.4
5–9 17.7 16.1 16.8 18.9 13.9 16.3 17.4 14.2 15.7 17.7 14.5
10–14 21.0 16.9 18.7 18.9 16.1 17.4 17.0 14.9 15.9 18.0 15.4
15–17 10.6 7.5 8.0 11.0 8.7 9.8 9.1 7.7 8.3 9.6 7.8
18–24 13.8 12.2 12.9 14.2 11.7 12.9 11.2 11.9 11.6 12.0 12.0
25–49 15.5 25.0 20.8 16.6 26.6 21.9 21.7 27.9 25.0 19.9 27.1
50–64 7.4 8.7 8.1 6.1 9.7 8.0 6.5 8.2 7.4 6.6 8.5
65+ 2.9 3.6 3.3 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.0
Don't know 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
N 3,534*+ 4,332 7,866 3,181 3,644 6,825 2,914 3,315 6,229 9,629 11,291
F: female; M: male
*Versus control (p<0.05)
+Versus HES-only (p<0.05) 
Over half of households across the study groups were headed by males. The program groups were statistically 
more likely (p<0.01) to report male household headship than those in the control group (Table 7). The mean 
household size ranged from 5.5 to 5.0 and was significantly higher in the full ISVP compared with the HES￾only and control groups (p<0.01).
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 39
Table 7. Household characteristics, per household survey
Characteristics Full ISVP
HES￾only Control
Household headship, %
Male 55.2 52.7 67.6
Female 44.8* 47.3* 32.4
Household size, %
2 3.1 5.0 5.8
3 10.7 12.9 16.7
4 18.4 20.0 21.8
5 22.3 19.4 20.1
6 18.7 20.6 15.8
7 13.0 12.8 8.9
8+ 13.9 9.4 10.8
Mean household size 5.5*+ 5.2 5.0
Households with orphans 
<18 years old, %
Double orphans 4.6 2.8 1.2
Single orphans 24.9 23.6 17.1
Any orphan 28.7 26.3 18.1
N 1,428 1,309 1,216
*Versus control (p<0.01)
+Versus HES-only (p<0.01)
Distribution within wealth quintiles was similar across groups. Approximately 19 percent and 23 percent of 
households were in the lowest wealth quintile (see Appendix A for details on calculation methods); the HES￾only group had the highest proportion of households in lowest wealth quintile (Table 8). The proportion of 
households in the highest wealth quintile ranged from about 17 percent to 22 percent, with the control group 
having the greatest proportion and the HES-only group having the lowest proportion of households in the 
wealthiest quintile. There were no statistically significant differences between groups.
Table 8. Distribution of households by wealth quintile
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Wealth
quintile, %
Lowest 19.4 23.2 19.6
Second 23.3 23.5 18.5
Middle 19.1 19.6 20.3
Fourth 21.3 18.8 19.9
Highest 16.9 14.9 21.6
N 1,428 1,309 1,216
No statistically significant differences between groups.
40 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 9. Household characteristics: utilities, communication, location
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Access to electricity, %
Yes 9.0 7.1 10.7
No 91.0 92.9 89.3
Owns mobile phone, %
Yes 43.9 40.3* 49.6
No 56.1 59.6 50.2
Missing 0.0 0.0 0.1
Residence location, %
Urban 0.4*+ 4.9 6.5
Rural 99.6 95.1 93.5
N 1,428 1,309 1,216
*versus control, p<0.05 
+versus HES-only, p<0.05
Access to electricity was low across all study groups, ranging from about seven percent (HES-only group) to 
eleven percent in the control group (Table 9). Mobile phones were owned by about 40 percent to 50 percent 
of all households; households in the HES-only group were significantly more likely to own a mobile phone
compared to the control group. Nearly all households in the study were rural (<93%). Significantly fewer 
residences in the full ISVP were classified as urban compared to the HES-only and the control group (p<0.05 
each).
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 41
Table 10. Household characteristics: type of toilet/latrine facilities 
Full ISVP
HES￾only Control
Improved, not shared facility, %
Flush/pour flush to piped sewer system 0.3 0.1 0.1
Flush/pour flush to septic tank 0.0 0.2 0.1
Flush/pour flush to pit latrine 2.4 1.4 2.4
Ventilated improved pit latrine 0.6 0.8 0.1
Pit latrine with slab 11.5 8.4 7.2
Composting toilet 2.2 1.7 3.4
Shared facility1
, %
Flush/pour flush to piped sewer system 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flush/pour flush to septic tank 0.0 0.1 0.1
Flush/pour flush to pit latrine 0.3 0.2 0.8
Ventilated improved pit latrine 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pit latrine with slab 0.6 1.3 1.0
Composting toilet 0.1 0.3 0.2
Nonimproved facility, %
Flush/pour flush not to sewer/septic tank/pit latrine 1.1 1.0 0.1
Pit latrine without slab/open pit 74.1 72.9 76.8
Bucket 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hanging toilet/hanging latrine 0.0 0.0 0.0
No facility/bush/field 5.2 9.8 7.2
Other 1.6 1.7 0.6
Missing 0.0 0.0 0.0
Any improved, not shared facility, % 17.0*+ 12.6 13.3
Nu 1,428 1,309 1.216
1Facilities that would be considered improved if they were not shared by two or more 
households.
*versus control, p<0.01
+versus HES-only, p<0.05
Households in the full ISVP had significantly more nonshared, improved toilet or latrine facilities than 
households in the HES-only (p<0.05) and the control groups (p<0.01; Table 10).
42 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 11. Household characteristics: source of drinking water
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Improved source, %
Piped water into dwelling, yard, or plot 2.1 0.3 1.4
Public tap/standpipe 34.7 28.0 34.0
Tube well/borehole 0.1 0.1 0.1
Protected dug well 6.7 9.7 8.2
Protected spring 35.2 28.9 29.4
Rainwater 0.3 0.0 0.1
Bottled water 0.0 0.0 0.1
Nonimproved source, %
Unprotected dug well 1.3 5.8 4.0
Unprotected spring 12.6 16.5 12.2
Tanker truck/cart with drum 0.0 0.0 0.1
Surface water 6.2 9.6 10.3
Other source, % 0.7 1.1 0.1
Any improved source 79.1+ 67.0 73.3
N 1,428 1,309 1,216
+versus HES-only, p<0.01
Over 65 percent of all households had an improved water source. More households in the full ISVP had 
access to an improved water source, followed closely by the control group (73% to 79%, respectively; Table 
11). The difference between the full ISVP and HES-only groups in access to improved water sources was 
statistically significant (p<0.01).
Table 12. Mean time to reach selected health services, per household report
Mean travel time from households, min N
Child Health 
Services
HIV Testing Services Child Growth Monitoring Services
Full ISVP 60.7 62.7 58.5 1,444
HES-only 64.5 64.8 64.5 1,327
Control 59.2 58.6 56.2 1,213
No statistically significant differences between groups
Households across groups had similar travel times (about one hour) to reach child health services (when child 
is sick and for other non-growth monitoring services) , HIV testing services, or child growth monitoring 
services (Table 12).
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 43
Table 13. Children’s caregiver arrangements and orphanhood
Background 
characteristics
Biological mother is primary 
caregiver, %
Biological father is primary 
caregiver, %
Neither biological parent is primary caregiver, 
%
Caregiver 
other than 
biological 
parent, %
One or 
both 
parents 
dead, %
Children, 
n
Father 
alive
Father 
dead
Unknown 
status
Mother 
alive
Mother 
dead
Unknown 
status
Both 
alive
Only 
father 
alive
Only 
mother 
alive
Both 
dead
Unknown 
status
Age, years
<2 88.2 1.8 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.3 9.1 2.0 862
2–4 80.2 3.4 1.0 1.9 1.0 0.0 8.3 0.6 0.2 0.1 3.2 12.5 5.4 1,480
5–9 74.0 6.6 1.3 3.4 0.6 0.0 9.1 0.6 1.5 0.5 2.3 14.0 10.1 3,414
10–14 68.5 11.5 1.5 4.2 0.6 0.0 7.0 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.5 13.7 17.6 3,686
15–17 63.8 17.4 1.2 2.9 0.9 0.0 5.4 1.3 3.2 2.5 1.3 13.8 25.7 1,892
Sex
Male 72.0 9.6 1.3 3.6 0.6 0.0 7.5 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.9 12.9 13.8 5,618
Female 73.6 8.4 1.2 2.6 0.8 0.0 7.8 1.2 1.8 0.9 1.9 13.6 13.3 5,728
Study group
Full ISVP 65.9 10.8 1.7 2.6 0.8 0.0 9.0 1.5 1.2 2.2 4.2 18.2 17.3 4,299
HES-only 66.8 13.5 2.4 2.3 1.0 0.0 8.7 0.7 1.2 1.4 2.0 13.9 17.9 3,711
Control 75.9 7.7 0.9 3.4 0.6 0.0 7.0 1.1 1.8 0.6 1.2 11.6 11.7 3,336
Province
City of 
Kigali 76.8 7.3 0.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 7.5 2.0 2.4 0.1 2.2 14.2 12.2 1,557
Southern 63.2 10.7 1.0 9.1 1.6 0.0 8.7 1.3 2.2 1.0 1.2 14.4 16.9 1,271
Western 67.6 10.2 1.9 1.8 0.7 0.0 9.7 1.2 1.5 2.0 3.3 17.7 16.0 4,395
Northern 81.5 7.3 0.9 1.7 0.3 0.0 5.3 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.8 8.3 9.9 3,563
Eastern 64.4 11.1 0.7 8.2 1.6 0.0 8.3 0.5 2.9 0.5 1.9 14.1 16.6 560
Twelve to 18 percent of children across groups had a primary caregiver that was not a biological parent. Among these children, seven to nine percent had living 
parents (Table 13). When the biological mother was the primary caregiver, 66 percent to 76 percent of households reported that the biological father was alive. 
When the biological father was the primary caregiver, 2.3 percent to 3.4 percent of biological mothers were alive.
44 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 14. Occupation of household head1
Background 
characteristics
Professional/ 
technical/ 
managerial, 
%
Sales 
and 
service, 
%
Agricultural, 
forestry, 
fishery, %
Craft and 
related 
trade 
workers, 
%
Stationary 
plant and 
machine 
operators2, 
%
Elementary3, 
%
Un￾employed, 
%
Housewife/ 
student/ 
retired, %
Disabled, 
%
N
Sex
Male 0.7 2.2 70.2 7.8 0.7 6.7 3.1 1.8 5.5 2,397
Female 0.0 0.8 82.2 0.8 0.0 4.5 4.3 3.0 4.3 1,556
Study group
Full ISVP 0.1 1.3 75.4 3.3 0.4 3.1 5.9 2.7 7.2 1,428
HES-only 0.3 0.8 80.9 3.7 0.2 3.8 2.1 2.2 5.1 1,309
Control 0.5 2.0 73.4 6.0 0.5 6.9 3.1 2.2 4.4 1,216
Total (all 
groups) 0.4 1.7 74.6 5.3 0.4 5.9 3.5 2.3 5.0 3,953
No statistically significant differences between groups
1Occupational coding followed the major categories detailed in NISR’s Customized International Standard Classification for Occupation (ISCO-08), Rwanda Classification 
Manual, 2012 edition.
2Stationary plant and machine operators include mill workers and commercial drivers of motor vehicles.
3Elementary occupations include cleaners, domestics, petty traders, mining, bicycle transport, loaders, food preparers
Approximately 70 percent of male and 80 percent of female heads of households were earning a livelihood in the agricultural, forestry or fishery sectors of the 
economy (Table 14). The HES-only group had the highest percentage of heads of households who worked in the agriculture, forestry or fishery sector, followed 
closely by the full ISVP and control groups. There were no significant differences in occupations of heads of households across the three study groups.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 45
Table 15. Working status of household head
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Working status, %
Paid occupation 73.2 76.5 73.8
Unpaid occupation 10.5 12.9 15.5
No occupation 15.8*+ 9.5 9.7
Missing 0.5 1.1 1.0
N 1,428 1,309 1,216
*Versus control, p<0.01
+Versus HES-only, p<0.01
The proportion of employed heads of households in a paid occupation was similar across study groups, about 
75 percent (Table 15). Heads of household with no occupation were significantly higher in the full ISVP
compared to HES-only and control groups (p< 0.01 each). Heads of households with unpaid occupations 
were highest in the control group, followed by the HES-only and full ISVP groups.
Caregiver
Table 16. Sex of caregivers 
Full ISVP HES only Control Total
Sex, %
Male 4.6 3.6 5.1 4.8
Female 95.4 96.4 94.9 95.2
N 1,444 1,327 1,213 3,984
No statistically significant differences
Over 95% of caregivers across all groups were female (Table 16). There were no differences between study 
groups.
46 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 17. Caregiver characteristics: age and marital status
Background characteristic
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
Age, years, %
16–24 4.6 4.1 4.1* 0.0 4.6 4.4 1.0 6.4 6.1
25–34 17.9 20.9 20.7 20.3 20.9 20.9 13.6 27.4 26.7
35–44 19.4 29.0 28.5 34.1 30.6 30.8 29.0 30.4 30.3
45–54 17.6 25.6 25.3 32.9 24.3 24.6 20.3 19.1 19.1
55–64 29.7 13.3 14.0 8.1 13.6 13.4 12.5 11.4 11.4
65+ 10.8 7.1 7.3 3.7 6.0 5.9 21.2 5.2 6.0
Mean age 47.8 44.3 44.4 44.3 43.7 43.7 49.4 41.2 41.6
Median age 50 43 43 41 43 43 47 39 39
Marital status, %
Married 27.3 39.5 38.9* 24.5 39.1 38.6* 28.5 47.1 46.1
Cohabitating 26.7 12.2 12.9* 21.0 11.0 11.3** 16.1 17.7 17.6
Divorced/Separated 14.8 8.9 9.1 15.9 12.2 12.4 19.4 7.6 8.2
Widowed 18.8 27.0 26.6 22.5 26.0 25.8 27.4 19.2 19.6
Never married 12.4 12.4 12.4 16.1 11.7 11.8 8.6 8.4 8.4
N 53 1,391 1,444 54 1,273 1,327 63 1,150 1,213
*Versus control, p<0.05
**Versus control, p<0.01
At least 50 percent of all caregivers were married or cohabitating in all study groups (Table 17). The 
proportions of married or cohabiting caregivers were significantly lower in the full ISVP (p<0.05 each) and 
HES-only groups (married, p<0.05; cohabitating p<0.01) compared with the control group. Mean ages of 
caregivers were similar across study groups, ranging from about 42 years to 44 years. 
Table 18. Caregiver characteristics: attended school and highest level of education completed
Background 
characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
Attended school, %
Yes 62.8 63.6 63.6 59.5 60.7 60.6 61.5 65.4 65.2
No 37.2 36.4 36.4 40.5 39.3 39.3 38.5 34.6 34.8
Highest education level 
completed, %
None/Preprimary 37.2 37.2 37.2 40.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 35.1 35.4
Primary 57.3 58.2 58.2 47.6 56.5 56.2 56.2 57.9 57.9
Secondary 5.5 3.5 3.6* 10.0 1.8 2.1** 3.8 5.5 5.4
TVET or higher 0.0 1.1 1.0 1.9 1.6 1.6 0.0 1.3 1.2
N 53 1,391 1,444 54 1,273 1,327 63 1,150 1,213
*Versus control, p<0.05
**Versus control, p<0.001
TVET, technical and vocational education and training
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 47
At least 60 percent of caregivers across study groups attended school (Table 18). Of caregivers who attended 
school, nearly 50 percent to 60 percent attended primary school. The proportion of caregivers who 
completed secondary education was quite small across study groups; however, a significantly higher 
percentage of caregivers in the control group than both program groups attended secondary school (full 
ISVP, p<0.05; HES-only, p<0.001). 
Table 19. Caregiver occupation status
Background 
characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
Employment1 status, %
Employed in last 3 
 months 78.3 74.9 75.1 76.0 75.8 75.8 73.4 77.6 77.4
 Employed in last 
 4–12 months 0.0 3.4 3.2 6.8 2.7 2.9 1.8 4.3 4.1
 Not employed in last 
 12 months 21.7 21.7 21.7 17.2 21.3 21.1 24.8 18.1 18.5
N 53 1,391 1,444 54 1,273 1,327 63 1,150 1,213
No statistically significant differences between groups.
1Includes self-employment, work on the family farm or in the family business, and other employment that yields income in 
cash or in kind.
Employment among caregivers was similar across study groups. In the three months before the survey, over 
75 percent of all caregivers were employed (Table 19). From four to 12 months before the survey, three to 
four percent of caregivers were employed. About 18 to 25 percent of caregivers were unemployed in the 12 
months before the survey.
Youth
Table 20. Sex of interviewed youth 
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Sex, %
Male 54.0 53.2 50.3
Female 46.0 46.8 49.7
N 1,100 1,162 719
No statistically significant differences between groups.
Over 50 percent of all youth respondents were male (Table 20).
48 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 21. Age groups of youth 10- to 17-years-old
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Background 
characteristic Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
Age, years, %
10–14 68.5 71.9 70.1 67.4 68.3 67.8 67.6 61.6 64.6
15–17 31.5 28.1 29.9 32.6 31.7 32.2 32.4 38.4 35.4
N 547 553 1,100 601 561 1,162 361 358 719
No statistically significant differences between groups.
Over 61 percent of participating youth were 10–14 years old across study groups (Table 21).
Table 22. Primary caregiver of youth participant
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Background 
characteristic Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
Primary caregiver, %
Biological mother 82.9 78.7 81.0 87.4 86.9 87.1 80.3 86.0 83.2
Biological father 2.6 3.8 3.1 4.9 1.6 3.3 4.5 3.6 4.0
Step/Foster parent 0.9 2.4 1.6 1.1 0.3 0.7 2.0 1.0 1.5
Sibling 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.8 2.2 1.5
Aunt/Uncle 2.6 0.8 1.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.2 0.7 1.0
Grandparent 9.2 11.5 10.3 5.1 10.1 7.4 11.0 4.9 8.0
Nonfamily member 0.6 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.1 1.3 0.7
Self 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
N 547 553 1,100 601 561 1,162 361 358 719
Over 80 percent of youth across study groups were being cared for by their biological mother. About 10 
percent of youth were being cared for by a grandparent (Table 22).
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 49
Integrated Savings and Lending Group Members
Table 23. Age of integrated savings and lending group members, by study arm
Background 
characteristic
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male1 Female Total
Age, years, %
15–24 1.5 2.5 2.2 2.4 3.6 3.3 (3.8) 6.6 6.0
25–34 17.6 17.6 17.6 9.8 18.8 16.8 (34.0) 20.8 23.6
35–44 24.9 28.3 27.4 32.4 30.7 31.0 (34.8) 32.3 32.8
45–54 19.8 27.4 25.4 24.8 25.8 25.6 (12.8) 24.2 21.8
55–64 22.5 14.6 16.7 16.7 14.3 14.8 (6.8) 10.3 9.6
65+ 13.7 9.6 10.7 12.6 6.8 8.0 (7.9) 5.7 6.2
Mean age 48.5 46.1 46.8 47.6 44.6 45.3 (40.0) 42.3 41.8
Median age 47 45 45 47 44 44 (36) 40 39
N1 394 1,003 1,397 280 1,001 1,281 42 185 227
1N = 25–49
Parenthesis indicate N=25-49
The mean age of ISLG group participants ranged from about 42 years to 47 years across study groups (Table 
23). 
Table 24. School attendance and educational attainment of integrated savings and lending
members
Background 
characteristic
Full ISVP HES-only Control1
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
Ever attended school, %
Yes 28.6 39.4 36.6 33.9 40.2 38.8 (17.6) 31.0 28.2
No 71.2 60.6 63.4 66.1 59.8 61.1 (82.4) 68.4 71.4
Highest level of 
education completed, 
%
None/Preprimary 29.1 40.2 37.2 35.7 41.1 39.9 (17.6) 31.0 28.2
Primary 67.8 55.4 58.7 57.5 55.1 55.6 (69.4) 57.1 59.7
Secondary 2.6 3.2 3.1 4.9 1.9 2.5 (11.6) 8.5 9.2
TVET or higher 0.1 1.2 0.9 1.7 2.0 1.9 (0.0) 2.8 2.2
N1 394 1,003 1,397 280 1,001 1,281 42 185 227
Parentheses indicate = 25–49
Across study groups, about one-third of participants who were ISLG group members attended school at one 
time (Table 24). Of those who had attended school, over 55 percent reported primary school as their highest 
level of education completed. Less than 10 percent of participants attended secondary school.
50 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Economic Status
A primary study indicator is the percentage of households with moderate or severe hunger, based on the 
FANTA hunger scale (Ballard, et. al, 2011). Moderate to severe hunger ranged from about 66 percent to 78 
percent across study groups, with the control group having the lowest percentage (Figure 3). The full ISVP 
study group had a significantly higher proportion of moderate to severe hunger compared with the control
group (p<0.01). 
Figure 3. Percent of households with moderate or severe household hunger
**Versus control, p<0.01
In all three study groups, nearly three-quarters of households had enough money to pay for unexpected 
household expenses (Table 25). 
Table 25. Households’ ability to pay for unexpected household expenses 
Characteristics
Ability to pay for unexpected 
household expenses
Study group, % Yes N
Full ISVP 69.2 468
HES-only 68.1 378
Control 75.7 452
Total 73.8 1,298
No statistically significant differences between groups
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Full ISVP** (n=1,405) HES only (n=1,289) Control (n=1,192)
Little to no hunger in the household
Moderate or severe hunger in the household
Don’t know/missing/refused
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 51
Table 26. Household farm tools and agricultural assets
Full ISVP HES-only Control Total
Farm tools, %
Hoes and spades 90.8 90.1 89.9 90.1
Machetes 71.8 65.1 74.4 72.8
Hatchet or axe 31.4 23.7 34.7 32.8
Sickles and knives 79.1 77.2 82.2 81.1
Picks 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.2
Sprinklers 2.8 2.3 2.2 2.3
Other hand tools 5.9 3.4 3.1 3.6
Mills and pestles 8.5 7.6 8.9 8.7
Sower/drill 3.3 3.0 4.5 4.1
Crop sprayer 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.2
Own any farm tool1 98.1 97.3 97.3 97.4
Livestock, %
Cattle 18.1 20.9 28.5 25.7
Bulls 2.4 1.7 2.8 2.6
Sheep 8.9 5.9 11.8 10.6
Goats 22.3 25.3 18.6 20.1
Pigs 14.0 13.0 14.7 14.4
Rabbits 4.2 6.8 5.1 5.1
Chicken and other poultry 9.7 10.3 11.8 11.2
Cochon d'Inde/Amapanya 2.0 2.5 1.4 1.6
Own any livestock 58.0 57.0 61.4 60.3
N 1,428 1,309 1,216 3,953
No statistically significant differences between study groups
Nearly all households owned farms tools (>97%); hoes and spades, sickles and knives, machetes were the 
most common farm tools owned (Table 26). About 60 percent of households owned livestock, with cattle 
and goats being the most common kind of livestock owned.
52 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 27. Household land ownership and cultivation in the past 12 months
Full ISVP HES-only Control Total
Anyone in household owned 
or cultivated a plot of land in
past 12 months, %
Yes 77.9 76.9 78.6 78.3
No 22.1 23.1 20.9 21.3
Missing 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4
N 1,428 1,309 1,216 3,953
Among those who owned or 
cultivated a plot, total area of 
all plots in acres1
Range
0.1-
123.5 0.1-168 0.1-95 0.1-168
Median 3.7 3.0 4.0 3.7
N 1,001 873 850 2,724
1There were 362 households that owned or cultivated a plot, but either did not know 
the total area or refused to answer. They are not represented in the mean and 
median or the number.
No statistically significant differences between study groups
Across study groups, nearly 80 percent of household members owned or cultivated land in the past 12 
months (Table 27). The median size of cultivated land ranged from three to four acres across study groups. 
Table 28. Mean and median daily consumption per capita (Rwandan Francs) 
Mean daily 
consumption, 
RWF
Median daily 
consumption, 
RWF
N
Study group
Full ISVP 325.0 266.9 1,428
HES-only 310.6 254.2 1,309
Control 325.6 265.1 1,216
No statistically significant differences between study groups
Household consumption per capita was similar across study groups. The mean household consumption per 
capita ranged from RWF310.6 to RWF325.6 (1 RWF=0.0012 USD) (Table 28).
Table 29. Consumption shares per capita
Full 
ISVP
HES 
only Control
Consumption share category, 
%
Food and beverages 49.5*** 51.6 54.2
Clothing and footwear 1.9 1.9 1.7
Housing 8.7**+++ 10.8 10.5
Energy 19.4 19.9* 17.4
Transport 1.5 1.3 1.4
Water 2.2 2.1 2.6
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 53
Education 4.2*** 2.2 2.2
Health 6.4**+ 5.1 4.7
Personal care 3.0++ 2.5 2.6
ICT 1.8*+ 1.2 1.2
Other 1.5 1.3 1.4
N 1,428 1,309 1,216
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 versus control
+p<0.05, ++p<0.01, +++p<0.001 versus HES-only
ICT, information and communications technology
The four highest consumption shares among all study households per capita were food and beverages, 
energy, housing, and health (Table 29). Across study groups, about 50 percent of the consumption per capita 
by households was on food and beverages. Energy was the next biggest expenditure, accounting for about 20 
percent of consumption per capita. The proportion of expenditure on food and beverages, as well as on 
housing was significantly lower in households in the full ISVP group compared with those in the control
group (p<0.001 and p<0.01, respectively). Conversely, full ISVP households had a higher proportion of 
expenditures on education (p<0.001), health (p<0.01), and information and communications technology 
(ICT; p<0.05) than the control households. Additionally, households in the full ISVP group had significantly 
higher proportions of expenditures on health (p<0.05), personal care (p<0.01), and ICT (p<0.05) than HES￾only households, but expenditures on housing in the full ISVP group was significantly lower than for HES￾only households (p<0.001).
Table 30. Household savings and types of savings institutions
Full 
ISVP HES-only Control Total
Households with savings, %
Yes 85.6*+ 77.2* 30.8 46.3
No 14.4 22.7 68.7 53.3
Missing 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.4
N 1,428 1,309 1,216 3,953
Types of savings institutions
1, %
Commercial bank 1.2 0.6 1.4 1.3
Microfinance 13.8 14.9 4.6 7.5
Savings & credit cooperative 21.1 18.1 8.2 11.7
Tontine 12.9 16.4 12.0 12.7
Household saves, but 
not with an institution
42.8 34.3 7.7 17.2
Missing 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1
No savings 14.4 22.7 68.7 53.3
N 1,428 1,309 1,216 3,953
Among those with savings at a bank, mean and 
median amount in RWF in current savings 
Mean – – – (19,237)
54 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Median – – – (0)
N 18 10 13 41
Among those with savings at a microfinance 
institution, mean and median amount in RWF in
current savings 
Mean 10,573 8,265 14,775 11,845
Median 6,800 6,000 1,000 3,400
N 212 198 57 467
Among those with savings at a savings and credit 
cooperative, mean and median amount in current 
savings
Mean 5,438 6,345 8,703 7,201
Median 1,300 2,500 1,000 1,200
N 280 288 105 673
1Households could report more than one savings type so percentages exceed100%.
*Versus control, p<0.001
+Versus HES-only, p<0.01
RWF, Rwanda franc
Parentheses indicate = 25–49
A significant proportion of households in the full ISVP and HES-only groups (over 75%; p<0.001 each) 
reported having savings compared to those in the control (about 30%; Table 30). Additionally, households in 
the full ISVP group were significantly more likely to have savings than those in the HES-only groups
(p<0.01). 
In program groups, over one-third of households saved, but did not use a savings institution. The most 
commonly used savings institution among program groups was a savings and credit cooperative (about 20%); 
households in the control group were most likely to use a tontine for savings (12%). The mean amounts 
saved across study groups ranged from about RWF19,000 in banks to RWF7,200 savings and credit 
cooperatives.
Table 31. Youth 10–17 years old reporting new employment in the past six months
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
In last 6 months, 
began new paid 
work, %
Yes 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.5
No 99.7 99.5 99.6 99.1 99.3 99.2 100.0 98.6 99.3
N 547 553 1,100 601 561 1,162 361 358 719
No statistically significant differences between study groups
Over 99 percent of all youth 10–17 years old had not begun a new job that paid a wage within six months of 
the survey (Table 31). 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 55
Child Health and Nutrition Status
Figure 4. Caregivers who knew their child’s HIV status
***Versus control, p<0.001
+++Versus HES-only, p<0.01
A significantly higher percentage of caregivers in the full ISVP group knew their children’s HIV status 
compared to both HES-only (p<0.01) and control groups (p<0.001) (Figure 4). Caregivers’ knowledge of 
their child’s HIV status did not vary by sex of the child.
Table 32. Caregiver’s knowledge of child’s HIV status 
Characteristics Full ISVP HES-only Control
Age group, years Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
<5 21.6 825 13.7 737 12.1 722
5–9 27.1 1,304 17.9 1,092 18.0 959
10–14 31.7 1,401 21.0 1,183 17.4 1,022
15–17 41.5 680 21.9 628 21.6 549
Total (all age 
groups) 30.0 4,210* 18.8 3,640 16.9 3,252
*Versus HES-only and control groups, p<0.001
Significantly more caregivers in the full ISVP group knew their child’s HIV status compared with the HES￾only and control groups (p<0.001 each; Table 32). Across all study groups, caregivers of older children were 
more likely to know the child’s HIV status than caregivers of younger children; however, the differences were 
smaller in the HES-only and control groups than the full ISVP group.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Full ISVP***+++ (N=4,210) HES only (N=3,640) Control (N=3,252)
Percent
Male Female Total
56 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 33. Undernourishment1 among children 
1Defined as mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) <125 mm
2N <25 
*Versus control, p<0.05
Undernourishment was defined as a mid-upper group circumference (MUAC) of less than 125 mm. 
Undernourished children 0 to 48 months were found in all study groups, ranging from about two percent to 
six percent (Table 33). The HES-only group had the most undernourished children, but was statistically 
significant only versus the control group (p<0.05). For all three study groups, children 6–11 months old were
the most undernourished age group, ranging from about seven percent to 15 percent. 
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex of child
Male 2.3 346 5.4 345 1.8 327
Female 3.9 400 6.4 340 3.0 323
Total 3.1 746 5.9 685* 2.4 650
Age groups, months
0-5 –
2 0 –
2 0 –
2 0
6–11 15.2 76 8.1 62 6.9 74
12–48 1.7 670 5.7 623 1.9 576
Total 3.1 746 5.9 685* 2.4 650
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 57
Table 34. Infant and young child feeding practices for children ages 6–59 months
Among breastfed children
Breastfed 
children, 
n
Among non-breastfed children
Non-breastfed 
children, n
Among all children
Number 
of 
children
Background 
characteristics
4+ food 
groups1
Minimum 
meal 
frequency2
4+ food 
groups 
and 
minimum 
meal 
frequency
Milk or 
milk 
products3
4+ food 
groups1
Minimum 
meal 
frequency4
With 3 IYCF
practices5
Breast 
milk, milk 
or milk 
products6
4+ food 
groups7
Minimum 
meal 
frequency
With 3 
IYCF
practices
Full ISVP
Age, months, %
6–11 8.4 10.8 1.4 74 – – – – 2 98.4 8.2 10.6 1.4 76
12–23 10.9 12.8 1.7 130 --- – – – 16 90.2 11.4 12.4 1.8 146
24–35 23.9 10.1 4.9 81 0.9 12.1 5.0 0.0 78 57.4 18.8 7.9 2.8 159
36–47 – – – 24 2.5 16.7 7.7 0.4 161 17.2 18.1 10.7 1.8 185
48–59 – – – 7 1.0 19.4 6.0 0.0 173 3.3 19.6 6.2 0.4 180
Sex, %
Male 13.5 8.8 2.9 139 2.0 19.8 6.0 0.2 207 43.1 17.2 7.2 1.3 346
e 16.0 16.3 3.5 177 1.7 14.4 7.2 0.3 223 47.9 15.1 11.5 1.8 400
Total 14.9 12.9** 3.2*+ 316 1.9 17.2 6.6 0.3 430 45.6 16.1 9.4 1.6*+ 746
HES-only
Age, months, %
6–11 23.4 26.3 20.3 58 – – – – 4 93.4 22.4 25.7 18.9 62
12–23 20.8 16.6 6.8 127 – – – – 15 86.6 19.6 14.7 5.8 142
24–35 17.3 16.2 10.3 68 0.8 24.2 0.8 0.0 55 55.9 20.4 9.4 5.7 123
36–47 (8.0) (35.0) (2.1) 27 3.8 15.5 6.7 0.3 157 16.1 14.5 10.4 0.5 184
48–59 – – – 6 2.9 14.2 3.7 0.0 168 6.3 13.9 3.6 0.0 174
Sex, %
Male 14.7 18.1 8.1 147 5.5 16.2 8.7 0.2 198 41.0 15.6 12.2 3.2 345
Female 22.7 21.2 11.5 139 0.2 15.7 0.2 0.0 201 44.2 18.8 9.5 5.1 340
Total 19.1 19.8 10.0 286 3.0 16.0 4.6 0.1* 399 42.6 17.2 10.8 4.1 685
Control
Age, months, %
6–11 9.3 27.3 6.4 71 – – – – 3 95.3 8.9 26.0 6.1 74
12–23 19.2 18.6 7.8 127 – – – – 18 92.0 22.1 18.8 7.6 145
24–35 12.4 27.6 6.0 59 4.4 18.6 6.1 1.8 76 46.4 15.9 15.5 3.7 135
36–47 – – – 17 6.0 14.7 10.9 2.3 140 12.3 16.3 13.3 4.1 157
48–59 – – – 4 0.8 18.2 2.9 0.0 135 4.1 18.3 2.8 0.0 139
Sex, %
Male 13.6 25.0 8.5 134 5.1 17.5 7.2 2.6 193 45.6 15.8 14.8 5.1 327
Female 18.5 21.9 6.8 144 3.2 18.6 7.2 0.3 179 44.7 18.5 13.5 3.1 323
Total 16.0 23.4 7.7 278 4.1 18.0 7.2 1.5 372 45.2 17.2 14.2 4.1 650
Note: Figures in parentheses are based on 25–49 unweighted cases. A dashed line indicates that a figure is based on fewer than 25 unweighted cases and has been suppressed. 
1Food groups: a. infant formula, milk other than breast milk, cheese or yogurt or other milk products; b. foods made from grains, roots, and tubers, including porridge and fortified baby food from grains; c. 
58 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables; d. other fruits and vegetables; e. eggs; f. meat, poultry, fish, shellfish and organ meats; g. legumes and nuts. 
2For breastfed children, minimum meal frequency is receiving solid or semisolid food at least twice a day for infants ages 6–8 months and at least three times a day for children 9 months and older. 
3
Includes two or more feedings of commercial infant formula; fresh, tinned, and powdered animal milk; and yogurt 
4For non-breastfed children, minimum meal frequency is receiving solid or semisolid food or milk feeds at least four times a day. 
5Nonbreastfed children are considered to be fed with a minimum standard of three infant and young child feeding practices if they receive other milk or milk products at least twice a day, receive the minimum 
meal frequency, and receive solid or semisolid foods from at least four food groups not including the milk or milk products food group. 
6Breastfeeding, or not breastfeeding and receiving two or more feedings of commercial infant formula, fresh, tinned, and powdered animal milk, and yogurt 
7Children are fed the minimum recommended number of times per day according to their age and breastfeeding status as described in footnotes 2 and 4.
*p<0.05, **p<0.01 versus controls
+p<0.05, ++p<0.01 versus HES-only
A significantly lower percentage of children ages 6–59 months old were breastfed and received minimum mean frequency in the full ISVP compared with 
children in the other two study groups (p<0.01; Table 34). A much smaller proportion of breastfed children in the full ISVP group (13 percent) received 
minimum meal frequency compared with the HES-only (20%) and in the control groups (23.4%). Additionally, among breastfed children, a significantly lower 
percentage had at least four food groups and minimum meal frequency in the full ISVP group compared to the other two study groups (p<0.01). Of breastfed
children in the in the full ISVP group, the proportion that reported at least four food groups and minimum meal frequency was much smaller than compared 
with the HES-only and control groups. 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 59
Table 35. Characteristics of children too sick to participate in daily activities in the past two 
weeks
Characteristics Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes N Yes N Yes N
Sex, %
Male 20.5 2,033 20.5 1,854 16.5 1,645
Female 23.8 2,177 22.4 1,786 20.8 1,607
Total 22.2 4,210 21.4 3,640 18.6 3,252
Age group, 
years, %
<5 31.7 825 29.9 737 28.7 722
5–9 24.7 1,304 22.8 1,092 17.5 959
10–14 17.1 1,401 16.7 1,183 14.1 1,022
15–17 17.1 680 18.0 628 13.0 549
Total 22.2 4,210 21.4 3,640 18.6 3,252
No statistically significant differences for total between groups
About 20 percent of all children were too sick to participate in daily activities in the two weeks before the 
survey (Table 35). Across all three study groups, the age group with the highest proportion of children too 
sick to participate in daily activities was children less than 5 years old (about 30 percent). 
Figure 5. Birth registration at sector level 
+Versus HES-only, p<0.05
*Versus control, p<0.05
Across all study groups, the oldest age group of children (15- to 17-year old) was more likely to have a
registered birth at the sector level (Figure 5). Overall, the full ISVP group had a significantly higher 
proportion of their births registered at the sector level than the HES-only group (p<0.05). Additionally, the 
HES-only group had a significantly lower proportion of registered births than the control group (p<0.05). 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Full ISVP+ HES only* Control
Percent
< 5 years 5-9 years 10-14 years 15-17 years Total
60 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Based on caregiver reports, 10 percent of children in the full ISVP and HES-only groups had a birth 
certificate, while only six percent in the control group had one. When the caregiver reported that the child 
had a birth certificate, interviewers asked to see a physical copy of the certificate. Caregivers showed physical 
copies of birth certificates for one percent of children in full ISVP and HES-only groups. For the control
group the interviewer was able to physically observe a birth certificate for 0.1 percent of children. It is worth 
noting that birth certificates in Rwanda are not standard, rather the norm is to have a birth registered at the 
sector level. There was no significant difference between groups, age, or sex for children with a birth 
certificate or children with a birth certificate that was physically observed by the interviewer (Appendix C).
Education
Figure 6. Children ages 7–17 years who attended all school days during the last week of 
instruction
No statistically significant differences between study groups
Across all three study groups, over 60% of all children ages 7–17 years did not miss any school days in the 
last week of instruction. The full ISVP study group had the highest proportion of all children who did not 
miss any school days in the last week of instruction, followed by the control group and the HES-only group
(Figure 6). There were no significant differences among the study groups. 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Full ISVP (N=2,917) HES only (N=2,492) Control (N=2,152)
Percent
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 61
Table 36. Main reasons students ages 7–17 years missed at least one school day during the last 
week of instruction 
Full ISVP HES only Control
Main reasons for missing school, %
Lack of money for school fees, materials, 
transport 11.2 19.3 15.7
Child is too sick or disabled to attend 45.2 47.8 54.8
Child is working 5.9 5.5 6.0
Child is caring for a household member 3.3 4.1 4.3
Child does not like school 6.4 5.4 7.6
School related: classes cancelled, school 
too far away, poor quality teachers 1.7 3.3 0.9
Hunger 15.8 9.1 4.5
Lacking clean clothes 2.5 0.1 1.7
Visiting home 2.3 1.7 0.9
Other 3.1 0.3 1.6
Missing 2.7 3.5 1.9
Number 693 503 471
Two groups of children were among those absent from school during the last week of instruction: (1) those
who were enrolled in school but did not attend (Table 36), and (2) those who were not enrolled in school. 
Reasons for missing the last week among children enrolled in school and for why a child was not enrolled in 
school were captured in separate questions. The most common reason for missing school during the last 
week of instruction among enrolled children was similar across all groups: the child was too sick or disabled
to attend (about 50%). Hunger and lack of money for school fees, materials, transport and other school 
expenses were also common responses.
62 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 37. Main reason for children ages 7–17 years not being enrolled in school 
Full ISVP HES only Control
Reasons for not being enrolled, %
Lack of money for school fees, materials, 
transport 33.2 50.0 46.2
Child is too sick or disabled to attend 18.1 7.7 13.4
Child is working 3.6 1.5 5.0
Child is caring for a household member 2.0 1.7 1.8
Child does not like school 33.8 27.2 24.4
School related: classes cancelled, school 
too far away, poor quality teachers 5.5 7.5 6.9
Hunger 1.4 0.1 1.2
Other 1.6 2.8 0.8
Missing 0.8 1.4 0.1
N 223 406 313
One-third to half of children ages 7–17 years across all three groups were not enrolled in school because they 
lacked money for school fees, materials, transport, and other school-related expenses (Table 37). About one￾quarter to one-third of all children were not enrolled because they did not like attending school. Notably, 
nearly 20 percent of children in the full ISVP group were reported to be too sick or disabled to attend school.
Table 38. Children ages 5–17 years who attended all school days in the last week of instruction
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes N Yes N Yes N
Sex of child, %
Male 61.0 1,652 53.6 1,478 61.7 1,277
Female 67.2 1733~ 58.2 1,425 59.6 1,253
Total 64.1 3,385+ 55.8 2,903 60.7 2,530
Age group, years, %1
5–9 60.7 1,304 48.5 1,092 55.6 959
10–14 70.2 1,401 70.4 1,183 72.2 1,022
15–17 57.8 680 42.1 628 48.4 549
Total 64.1 3,385+ 55.8 2,903 60.7 2,530
Age group, years, %2
5–6 52.2 468 29.0 411 35.2 378
7–12 68.4 1,667 66.3 1,392 71.2 1,182
13–17 62.9 1,250 53.0 1,100 58.6 970
Total 64.1 3,385+ 55.8 2,903 60.7 2,530
+Versus HES-only, p<0.01
~Within group difference, female is significantly higher than male (p<0.01)
1Sample based on MER age group disaggregation categories
2Dissagregations based on comparable country data
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 63
When disaggregating the data, two different sets of age groups were utilized: the first age grouping was based 
on MER disaggregation categories, the second set of age groups was from comparable country data (Table 
38). In both data sets, all children within the age band form the denominator, including those who are not 
currently enrolled in school. For the full ISVP group, youth in every age group were significantly more likely 
to have not missed school in the last week of instruction compared to those in HES-only (p<0.01). Within 
the full ISVP study group, female children were significantly more likely to have not missed any school days 
than male children (p<0.01). 
Table 39. Sex of children who progressed in school during the last year 
Characteristics Full ISVP HES-only Control
Sex Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Male 90.0 1,119 84.1 963 86.9 828
Female 90.4 1,192 83.5 998 91.0 870
Total 90.2 2,311 83.8 1,961 89.0 1,698
No statistically significant differences between group totals.
The majority of both male and female children across study groups (84%–90%) who were enrolled in school 
during the last school year progressed to the next grade (Table 39). There was no significant difference in 
school progression between the study groups.
Table 40. School progress of 13- to 17-year-olds at various levels of school
Characteristics Full ISVP HES only Control
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
School progression, %
Within primary 56.4 55.1 55.7 53.2 47.9 50.6 50.6 53.9 52.2
Primary to secondary 11.6 15.4 13.5
+ 4.6 7.5 6.0 11.2 7.3 9.3
Within Secondary 7.5 7.9 7.7 4.5 6.6 5.5 7.0 11.5 9.2
Secondary to TVET/University 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3
Did not progress 2.8 4.5 3.6+ 7.0 5.6 6.3** 3.6 2.3 3.0
Not enrolled this or last year 21.7 17.1 19.4
*++ 30.6 32.4 31.5 27.0 25.0 26.0
N 613 637 1250 542 558 1,100 490 480 970
*Versus control, p<0.05
**Versus control, p<0.01
+Versus HES-only, p<0.05
++Versus HES-only, p<0.01
TVET, technical and vocational education and training
Across all study groups, over half of children ages 13–17 years old who were enrolled in school progressed 
within primary school (Table 40). The full ISVP group had significantly more children progress from primary 
to secondary school compared to the HES-only group (p<0.05). A much smaller proportion progressed from 
primary to secondary school (range: 9%–13%). Significantly fewer 13- to 17-year-old children in the HES￾only group did not progress from primary to secondary school compared to those in both the full ISVP
64 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
group (p<0.05) and control (p<0.01) groups. The full ISVP group also had a smaller proportion of children 
13–17 years old who were not enrolled in school compared with both the HES-only and control groups.
Table 41. Secondary school enrollment among 13- to 17-year-olds
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex
Male 20.2 613 10 542 18.6 490
Female 24.8 637 15.6 558 20.1 480
Total 22.5 1,250 12.7 1,100 19.4 970
Age group, years
13–14 10.2 570 7.8 472 12.8 421
15–17 33.2 680 16.1 628 24.5 549
Total 22.5 1,250+ 12.7 1,100 19.4 970
+Versus HES-only, p<0.05
Data on secondary school enrollment and attendance for 13- to 17-year-olds shows that overall three-quarters 
of children ages 13–17 years old were not enrolled in secondary school, and slightly more female than male 
children were enrolled (Table 41). Significantly more children in the full ISVP group were enrolled in 
secondary school compared with the same age children in the HES-only group (p<0.05).
Table 42. Regular secondary school attendance among 13- to 17-year-olds
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes N Yes N Yes N
Sex, %
Male 15.7 613 7.1 542 16.6 490
Female 19.8 637 12.3 558 15.7 480
Total 17.7 1,250 9.6 1,100 16.1 970
Age group, years, %
13–14 7.3 570 5.1 472 10.7 421
15–17 26.8 680 12.7 628 20.3 549
Total 17.7 1,250+ 9.6 1,100* 16.1 970
*Versus control, p<0.05
+Versus HES-only, p<0.05
Regular secondary school attendance, defined as no missed days of secondary school during the last week of 
instruction, among 13- to 17-year-olds ranged from about 10 percent to 16.5 percent (Table 42). In the full 
ISVP group, more caregivers reported that 13- to 17-year-olds regularly attended secondary school than did
caregivers in the HES-only group (p<0.05). Also, caregivers in the HES-only group reported significantly
lower regular secondary school attendance for 13- to 17-year-olds compared to caregivers in the control
group (p<0.05).
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 65
Table 43. Youth ages 13–17 years enrolled in and regularly attended secondary school
Characteristic
Full ISVP HES only Control
Sex, %
Male 77.9 70.8 89.1
Female 79.7 78.9 77.8
Age group, years, %
13–14 72.0 65.7 83.8
15–17 80.7 79.0 83.1
Total 78.9 75.6 83.3
N 283 157 169
Caregivers across study groups reported that over 75 percent of children aged 13–17 were enrolled in 
secondary school and did not miss any days during the last week of instruction (Table 43). Similar percentages 
of males and females (about 70% to 90%) ages 13–17 years old were enrolled in secondary school and had 
regular attendance. 
Child Protection
Figure 7. Caregivers who agreed that harsh physical punishment is an appropriate means of 
discipline or control in the home or school 
*Versus control, p<0.05
+Versus HES-only, p<0.05
A significantly higher proportion of caregivers in the full ISVP group agreed that harsh punishment was an 
appropriate means of discipline in the home or school compared with caregivers in the HES-only and control
group (p<0.05, each; Figure 7).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Full
ISVP*+(N=1,444)
HES only
(N=1,327)
Control (N=1,213)
Percent
66 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Household Decision Making
Table 44. Characteristics of female caregivers in the full ISVP group who made some household decisions alone or jointly 
Characteristics Woman’s own 
health care
Children’s 
health 
care
What 
children are 
fed
Whether 
child attends 
ECD services
Making 
major
household 
purchases
Making 
purchases 
for daily 
household 
needs
All six 
decisions
made 
alone or 
jointly
None of 
the 
decisions
made
alone or 
jointly
N
Age groups, years, %
16–24 (92.2) (93.1) (93.2) (92.6) (72.6) (77.4) (63.6) (0.9) 43
25–34 87.2 92.3 91 91.1 77.2 84.6 68.4 4.2 325
35–44 91.3 92.6 97 93.8 88.6 93.7 77.2 0.6 430
45–54 97.1 98.7 99.5 91.9 94.7 97.5 85.5 0.5 330
55–64 93.5 95.5 94.7 90.4 90.1 95.8 82.5 3.1 173
65+ 97.7 97.5 94.7 85.1 93.5 97.5 81.4 1.2 89
Total 92.7 94.8 95.8 91.6 87.7 92.7 77.9 1.7 1,391
Employment status, %
Worked in last 3 months 92.6 94.5 96.4 91.8 87.3 92.8 76.6 1.2 1,071
Worked last 4–12 months (82.6) (91.2) (93.0) (86.5) (75.4) (77.6) (65.6) (6.0) 42
Unemployed 94.6 96.4 94.1 91.8 91.0 94.5 84.4 2.8 278
Total 92.7 94.8 95.8 91.6 87.7 92.7 77.9 1.7 1,391
Highest level of education 
attained, %
None 94.3 95.6 95.2 89.9 90.4 94.9 79.9 1.9 498
Primary 92.1 94.6 96.1 92.5 86.7 91.2 77.2 1.6 827
Secondary (88.1) (90.5) (96.8) (92.4) (78.7) (93.4) (71.0) (1.3) 44
TVET/Higher – – – – – – – – 22
Total 92.7 94.8 95.8 91.6 87.7 92.7 77.9+ 1.7 1,391
+Versus HES-only, p<0.05
ECD, early childhood development; TVET, technical and vocational education and training
Dashed line indicates N = <25 and value has been suppressed
Parentheses indicate N = 25–49
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 67
Table 45. Characteristics of female caregivers in the HES-only group who made some household decisions alone or jointly
Characteristics
Woman’s
own 
health 
care
Children’s 
health 
care
What 
children are 
fed
Whether child 
attends ECD 
services
Making major 
household 
purchases
Making 
purchases for 
daily 
household 
needs
All six 
decisions
made 
alone or 
jointly1
None of 
the 
decisions
made 
alone or 
jointly
N
Age groups, years, %
16–24 (93.8) (88.2) (94.6) (96.2) (60.5) (60.6) (58.2) (3.8) 38
25–34 85.3 92.8 93.6 94.4 80 85.6 73.1 0.5 287
35–44 92.9 98.3 98 97.2 91.7 96.5 85.1 0.4 405
45–54 97.5 97.8 99.1 97.2 96.8 98.8 91.8 0.4 283
55–64 98.7 98.5 98.7 96.4 95.3 98.7 91.1 0.0 184
65+ 97.8 99.4 98.3 96.5 97.2 98.8 93.7 0.0 75
Total 93.5 96.6 97.3 96.4 89.9 93.5 84.3 0.5 1,273
Employment status, %
Worked in last 3 
months 92.8 96.6 97.6 96.3 89.4 93.3 83.2 0.5 958
Worked last 4–12 
months (97.6) (98.8) (97.6) (100.0) (95.0) (93.5) (89.8) (0.0) 43
Unemployed 95.4 96.3 96.2 96.1 90.9 94.3 87.4 0.8 271
Total 93.5 96.6 97.3 96.4 89.9 93.5 84.3 0.5 1,273
Highest level of 
education attained, %
None 95.3 98.2 98.0 96.6 93.6 95.6 90.0 0.4 478
Primary 92.5 96.0 96.7 96.1 87.3 92.8 80.7 0.6 741
Secondary (96.3) (82.0) (96.3) (98.2) (78.0) (78.0) (78.0) (1.8) 32
TVET/Higher – – – – – – – – 20
Total 93.5* 96.6* 97.3* 96.4* 89.9 93.5 84.3* 0.5 1,273
*versus control, p<0.05
ECD, early childhood development; TVET, technical and vocational education and training
Dashed line indicates N = <25 and value has been suppressed
Parentheses indicate N = 25–49
68 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 46. Characteristics of female caregivers in the control group who made some household decisions alone or jointly
Characteristics
Woman’s 
own health 
care
Children’s 
health care
What 
children are 
fed
Whether child 
attends ECD 
services
Making 
major 
household 
purchases
Making 
purchases for 
daily 
household 
needs
All six 
decisions 
made alone 
or jointly
None of the 
decisions 
made alone or 
jointly
N
Age groups, years, %
16–24 77.3 83 84.9 91.1 68.9 79.3 58.7 8.9 63
25–34 84.1 88.8 91 95.1 78.4 87.3 68.4 2.1 285
35–44 94.3 95.7 95.8 94.2 87.1 94.9 80.2 1.3 355
45–54 92.5 96.8 97.7 94.4 91.1 96 81.0 0.8 258
55–64 95.8 96 95 93.7 95.1 97.5 87.7 2.0 136
65+ 98.4 98.4 98.6 86 98.9 99.5 82.1 0.0 50
Total 90.4 93.4 94.2 93.8 85.9 92.6 76.7 1.9 1,150
Employment status, % 
Worked in last 3 
months 91.2 93.7 94.7 93.6 86.6 93.2 77.3 2.1 893
Worked last 4–12 
months (92.9) (94.8) (91.6) (96.5) (85.5) (92.6) (80.6) (0.0) 48
Not worked 86.6 91.4 92.5 94 82.9 89.8 73.4 1.5 209
Total 90.4 93.4 94.2 93.8 85.9 92.6 76.7 1.9 1,150
Highest level of 
education attained, %
None 91.6 94.6 96.5 92.9 89.1 95.5 79.9 1.2 411
Primary 89.7 92.9 93.3 94.4 84.8 91.4 75.0 1.9 663
Secondary 87.5 88.8 87.6 91.2 72.4 84.1 68.7 7.6 57
TVET/Higher – – – – – – – – 17
Total 90.4 93.4 94.2 93.8 85.9 92.6 76.7 1.9 1,150
ECD, early childhood development; TVET, technical and vocational education and training
Dashed line indicates N = <25 and value has been suppressed
Parentheses indicate N = 25–49
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 69
Over 75 percent of all female caregivers reported sole or joint decision making on six decisions (see Tables 
44–46) investigated in the survey 4. Caregivers in the full ISVP made significantly more decisions than those 
in the HES-only group, and caregivers in the HES-only made significantly more decisions than those in the 
control group (p<0.05, each). For four of the individual decisions, there were statistically significant more 
decisions made by caregivers in the HES-only than control groups in sole or joint decision making (p<0.05). 
Over 90 percent of the female caregivers in the HES-only and control groups participated in decision making 
about their own healthcare. Additionally, over 90 percent of the female caregivers in the HES-only and 
control groups reported participating in decision making about their child’s healthcare. Furthermore, over 94
percent of the female caregivers in the HES-only and control groups participated in making decisions about 
their child’s food. Finally, nearly all of the female caregivers in the HES-only group reported participating in 
decisions making about early child education for their children. 
Table 47. Decision making on wife's cash earnings (caregiver report)
Full ISVP HES only Control
Married women who received
cash earnings for employment, 
% 73.5 70.0 70.7
N 789 700 737
Person who decided how wife's 
cash earnings were used %
Mainly wife 35.1 29.7 28.3
Wife and husband jointly 55.2 61.8 61.4
Mainly husband 9.0 8.0 10.0
Other 0.8 0.5 0.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
N 584 477 518
No statistically significant differences between groups for totals
Overall, at least 70 percent of married women received cash for work across study groups. Among married 
them, over half decided jointly with their husbands on how to spend their earnings and about one-third
decided mainly on their own (Table 47). About 10.0 percent reported that their husband mainly decided how 
to use the wife’s earnings. There were no statistically significant differences between study groups.
70 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 48. Decision making on use of husband's cash earnings (caregiver report)
Full ISVP
HES￾only Control
Married women whose husbands 
received cash earnings, % 98.3 99.1 99.1
N 789 700 737
Person who decided how husband's 
cash earnings were used, %
Mainly wife 18.3 17.6 14.2
Wife and husband jointly 59.3 60.6 63.0
Mainly husband 20.9 19.8 21.7
Other 1.4 2.0 1.0
N 782 694 727
No statistically significant differences between groups for totals
Over 98 percent of all married women had husbands who received cash for work (Table 48). Across study 
groups, about 60 percent of married female caregivers jointly decided how to use their husband’s cash 
earnings, about 20% reported that their husbands mainly made financial decision, and less than 20 percent 
reported that they made decisions on their own. There were no statistically significant differences between 
study groups.
Intimate Partner Violence
No statistically significant differences between study groups for totals.
A sample of married female caregivers (N=2,146) were asked if they experienced IPV. Of these, 18- to 30-
year-olds across all three study groups had the highest proportion of any physical or sexual violence in the 
past 12 months, ranging from about 27 percent to 23 percent (Figure 8). There were no significant 
differences between the study groups. 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Full ISVP (N=761) HES only (N=665) Control (N=720)
Percent
18-30 years old 31-50 years old 50+ years old Total
Figure 8. Married female caregivers who reported experience of physical or sexual violence 
in the past 12 months 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 71
Table 49. Characteristics of married, female caregivers who experienced physical violence in 
the past 12 months
Characteristics Full ISVP HES-only Control
Age groups, years, % Yes Yes Yes
18–30 23.7 25.8 20.1
31–50 14.9 21.9 14.8
50+ 7.1 16.0 6.2
Highest level of education 
attained, %
None 10.3 21.4 12.4
Primary 15.7 20.8 16.8
Secondary –
1 –
1
(5.1)
TVET/Higher –
1 –
1 –
1
Total 14.0 21.0 14.6
N 761 665 720
No statistically significant differences between groups for totals.
TVET, technical and vocational education and training
1N = <25
Parentheses indicate N= 25–49
Overall, the youngest married, female caregivers (18–30 years old) experienced more physical violence (range:
20% to 26%) that did the older age groups (Table 49). In all study groups, violence was most prevalent 
among caregivers with a primary education than among those with no education or secondary education; 
however, samples sizes were very low in the program groups for this analysis. Differences between groups 
were not statistically significant.
Table 50. Characteristics of female caregivers who experienced sexual violence in the last 12 
months 
Characteristics Full ISVP HES-only Control
Age groups, years, % Yes Yes Yes
18–30 14.6 14.0 10.5
31–50 13.0 13.7 11.2
50+ 2.2 5.4 3.3
Missing –
1 –
1 –
1
Highest level of education 
attained, %
None 8.9 11.6 6.5
Primary 12.1 12.1 11.8
Secondary –
1 –
1
(4.7)
TVET/Higher –
1 –
1 –
1
Missing –
1 –
1 –
1
Total 10.7 11.8 9.7
N 761 665 720
No statistically significant differences between groups for totals
TVET, technical and vocational education training
1N = <25
Parentheses indicate N= 25–49
72 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Overall, the prevalence of sexual violence was similar among female caregivers ages 18 to 59 years old, 
ranging from about 10 percent to 15 percent; older women (>50 years) experienced comparatively lower rates 
of sexual violence than the younger age groups (about 2% to 5%; Table 50). Sexual violence was slightly more 
prevalent among female caregivers with primary education than with no education. Data for caregivers with 
secondary education was scant. Differences between study groups were not statistically significant.
Table 51. Household decision making among married, female caregivers who experienced 
intimate partner violence
Physical or sexual violence 
in last 12 months
Full ISVP HES only Control
Number of decisions made solely or 
jointly, %
0–3 27.3 25.7 28.7
4–5 20.8 28.4 16.0
6 17.1 24.9 19.7
N 761 665 720
No statistically significant differences between groups
Female caregivers who made zero to three decisions by themselves or jointly with their partner experienced 
more sexual violence in the past 12 months than those who made four or more decisions within the same 
time frame (range: 26% to 29%; Table 51). Caregivers in the HES-only group consistently reported more IPV 
than other groups, but the differences were not statistically significant between study groups.
Table 52. Decisions of how married, female caregivers’ earnings were spent among those who 
experienced intimate partner violence
Physical or sexual violence 
in last 12 months
Full ISVP** HES only Control*
Primarily decision maker
Mainly female caregiver 31.5 35.5 33.0
Female caregiver and spouse jointly 15.5 26.3 17.9
Mainly husband 28.4 22.8 27.0
Other 60.1 19.9 0.0
N 562 450 504
*Within study group differences, p<0.05
**Within study group differences, p<0.01
Across study groups, about one-third of female caregivers who experienced physical or sexual IPV made 
decisions alone about how to spend their earnings; nearly an equal percentage of decisions were made by the 
husband alone (Table 52). Within group differences in the full ISVP and the control groups were statistically 
significant for female caregivers who experienced IPV and on who decides how to spend her cash 
employment earnings (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively). When either mainly the respondent or mainly the 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 73
husband made the decision, report of IPV was higher compared to when decisions were jointly made. The 
pattern in HES-only was different, with higher reports of IPV found among those who made financial 
decisions alone or when the respondent and spouse jointly decided; however, these differences were not 
statistically significant. When the primary decision maker was not the husband or wife, 60 percent in the full 
ISVP group, 19.9 percent in the HES-only group, and zero percent in the control group reported 
experiencing violence.
Table 53. Decisions on how to spend spouse’s earnings among married, female caregivers, by
experience of intimate partner violence
Any experience of physical or sexual violence in 
past 12 months
Full ISVP* HES only Control**
Primary decision maker for how to spend 
husband’s cash earnings
Mainly respondent 31.4 22.8 19.3
Respondent and spouse jointly 11.8 22.5 16.9
Mainly husband 29.2 39.8 29.3
Other 32.0 3.5 0.0
N 754 661 711
*Within study group differences, p<0.0001
**Within study group differences, p<0.05
Trends for spending decisions for their husband’s earnings were similar to how decisions were made for 
spending decisions for married, female caregiver’s earnings among those who experienced IPV (Table 53). In 
the full ISVP and control groups, significantly more IPV occurred when spending decisions were primarily 
made by the married, female caregiver only or her husband only compared to when decisions were jointly 
made (p<0.0001 and p<0.05, respectively). The HES-only group had a similar, but not statistically significant,
pattern. When the primary decision maker was not the husband or wife, 32 percent in the full ISVP group, 
3.5 percent in the HES-only group, and zero percent in the control group reported experiencing violence.
Youth Attitudes Towards Gender
Completion rates of the GEM scale among youth ages 13–17 years old varied by study group, ranging from
less than 70 percent (HES-only group) to 90 percent (control group) (Table 54), but differences between 
study groups were not statistically significant. The mean composite score for the GEM scale was similar 
across study groups at about 15.5 out of 24;1 higher total scores indicate more gender equitable beliefs.
 
1 Composite score was constructed by summing answers to the eight individual questions presented in Table 55. A 
response of “Agree a lot” was worth 1 point, a response of “Somewhat agree” was worth 2 points, and a response of 
“Do not agree at all” was worth 3 points. 
74 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 54. Attitudes towards gender among youth ages 13–17 years old
Characteristics Full ISVP HES-only Control
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
Completed GEM scale, %
Yes 83.5 82.6 83.1 66.5 68.7 67.5 92.1 90.4 91.3
Refused at least 1 question 16.5 17.4 16.9*+ 33.5 31.3 32.5** 7.9 9.6 8.7
N 313 311 624 330 335 665 206 210 416
Among those who completed 
GEM questions, those who 
‘agreed a lot’ with the following 
statements, %
A woman's most important role is 
to take care of her home and 
family. 72.1 62.9 68.0 79.1 73.7 76.4 71.7 71.5 71.6
Changing diapers, giving kids a 
bath, and feeding the kids are 
the mother's responsibilities. 73.6 65.3 69.9 68.3 75.4 71.8 64.5 73.7 69.1
It is a woman's responsibility to 
avoid getting pregnant. 53.6 39.0 47.1 48.4 51.5 49.9 53.0 49.0 51.0
A man should have the final word 
about decisions in his home. 53.8 54.1 53.9 56.3 53.2 54.8 57.6 58.9 58.2
To be a man, you need to be 
tough. 27.0 26.5 26.8 35.3 26.7 31.0 35.5 29.5 32.5
A man is less than a man if he 
earns less than his wife. 27.5 30.6 28.8 32.8 33.4 33.1 23.1 31.7 27.4
A woman should tolerate 
violence to keep her family 
together. 37.8 34.7 36.4 50.0 41.5 45.8 29.3 33.4 31.4
A wife who earns more than her 
husband provokes violence. 23.6 19.9 22.0 30.0 28.1 29.1 14.3 25.4 19.9
Among those who completed all 
GEM questions, mean and 
median composite score1
Mean 15.7 16.3 16.0 15.0 15.3 15.1 15.7 15.5 15.6
Median 15 16 15 15 15 15 16 15 16
N 232 232 464 195 195 390 190 189 379
GEM: gender equitable men
1No statistically significant differences between study groups for total score (range 8–24)
*Versus control, p<0.05
**Versus control, p<0.01
+Versus HES-only, p<0.05
The GEM composite score (range: 8 to 24) was divided into three levels: low (8–13), medium (14–19) or high
(20–24). Mean scores ranged from 15–16 across study groups (Table 55). Comparing results by sex (data not 
shown) did not yield any significant differences.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 75
Table 55. Gender equitable men score band among youth ages 13–17 years
Full ISVP HES-only Control
GEM score bands
Low 27.4 34.8 30.0
Moderate 47.7 49.5 53.7
High 24.9 15.8 16.3
N 464 390 379
No statistically significant differences between study groups
Table 56 displays differences in levels of gender equitable beliefs among youth ages 13–17 years who attended
a positive masculinity program and those who did not attend. Nearly 50% of all respondents were in the 
moderate GEM score band regardless of whether they attended a program addressing positive masculinity. 
The youth in the full ISVP group who attended the program reported less gender equitable beliefs. The youth 
who attended the program in HES-only and control groups had comparatively lower gender equitable beliefs. 
We examined the GEM levels by sex within study groups (data not shown) but found no statistically 
significant differences. Similarly, we found no difference in whether exposure to a positive masculinity 
program differed by sex (data not shown).
Table 56. GEM score levels among youth ages 13–17 years who attended a positive masculinity 
program
Full ISVP HES only Control
Attended
positive 
masculinity 
program
Did not 
attend
Attended
positive 
masculinity 
program
Did not 
attend
Attended
positive 
masculinity 
program
Did not 
attend
GEM score 
bands
Low 35.8 25.2 35.9 34.5 –
1 29.2
Moderate 46.8 47.9 53.4 48.6 –
1 54.1
High 17.4 26.9 10.7 16.9 –
1 16.7
N 114 350 52 338 19 360
1N <25
Table 57 displays GEM score levels by school enrollment status. About half of all youth 13–17 years old had 
moderate GEM scores. GEM scores did not vary by school enrollment status. Sample sizes were small for 
numbers of those who were not enrolled, however.
76 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 57. GEM score levels in youth ages 13–17 years who were enrolled in school
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Enrolled
Not 
enrolled Missing1 Enrolled
Not 
enrolled Missing1 Enrolled
Not 
enrolled Missing1
GEM score
levels
2
Low 27.5 (24.7)3 – 33.5 41.4 – 29.9 31.7 –
Moderate 45.4 (58.5) – 49.8 47.3 – 54.0 52.5 –
High 27.2 (16.8) – 16.7 11.3 – 16.2 15.7 –
N 410 47 7 308 79 3 283 89 7
1N <25
2Low, 8–13; Moderate, 14–19; High, 20–24
Parentheses indicate N= 25–49
Health Service Use
Across all study groups at least 60 percent of children ages 0–59 months old were monitored for growth in 
their home or at a health center in the last 12 months (range: 61% to 71%; Table 58). The proportion of 
children monitored for growth did not vary significantly by sex or age. Children 12–23 months old had the 
highest proportion of growth monitoring overall, but no statistical differences were found between study 
groups.
Table 58. Characteristics of children ages 0–59 months monitored for growth at home or 
at a health center in the last 12 months 
Characteristics Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex
Male 68.4 381 62.4 376 66.0 368
Female 73.6 444 59.4 361 67.8 354
Total 71.1 825 60.9 737 66.9 722
Age group, months
0–11 53.7 155 48.3 114 49.9 146
12–23 81.2 305 69.3 265 74.0 280
24–59 69.7 365 58.3 358 68.2 296
Total 71.1 825 60.9 737 66.9 722
N 586 490 473
No statistically significant differences in totals between groups
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 77
Across all three study groups, the two most common frequencies with which a child was monitored for growth in the past 12 months was once or twice
and three to five times, regardless of the child’s sex of age (Table 59). No significant difference in frequency a child was taken to a growth monitoring 
center occurred between study groups.
Table 59. Characteristics of children ages 0–59 months that had growth monitoring events at home or a health center in the last 12 
months 
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Number of events, %
N
Number of events, %
N
Number of events, %
1–2 3–5 6–10 >10 1–2 3–5 6–10 >10 1–2 3–5 6–10 >10 N
Male 38.3 34.4 9.3 13.6 259 29.0 19.5 23.7 25.0 245 35.2 36.5 13.3 13.7 239
Female 28.9 40.6 16.5 13.5 327 37.1 28.1 18.1 13.5 245 34.9 32.9 15.1 15.0 234
Total 33.2 37.8 13.2 13.5 586 32.9 23.7 21.0 19.5 490 35.1 34.7 14.2 14.3 473
Age group, 
months
0–-11 37.1 36.1 13.0 10.3 84 49.6 22.3 16.4 9.1 60 47.8 34.6 15.3 1.1 76
12–23 32.9 34.6 15.7 15.5 251 25.1 30.1 24.1 19.7 203 26.7 42.0 15.2 15.6 203
24–59 32.4 41.3 10.9 12.7 251 35.7 18.2 19.4 21.8 227 39.5 26.6 12.7 17.7 194
Total 33.2 37.8 13.2 13.5 586 32.9 23.7 21.0 19.5 490 35.1 34.7 14.2 14.3 473
N 198 213 83 82 151 139 102 83 165 165 70 67
No statistically significant differences for totals between groups
78 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Approximately 75 percent of children ages 0–59 months had fever and treatment for fever across study 
groups (Table 60). The control group had the highest proportion of children with fever and fever treatment; 
however, there was no significant difference between study groups.
Table 60. Characteristics of children ages 0–59 months old with fever and treatment for fever 
within two weeks of interview 
No statistically significant differences between groups
Parentheses indicate N= 25–49
The proportion of children 0–59 months with diarrhea two weeks before the interview was similar across 
intervention groups, ranging from about 14 percent to 19 percent (Table 61). The full ISVP group had 
significantly higher percentages of children whose caregivers sought treatment for diarrhea compared to the 
HES-only and the control groups (p<0.01). The HES-only group had a significantly lower percentage of 
children whose caregiver sought treatment for their diarrhea than the control group (p<0.001). 
Characteristics Full ISVP HES-only Control
% N % N % N
Fever within past 
2 weeks 28.7 825 24.3 737 23.7 722
Sought treatment
Sex 
Male 73.9 111 68.7 87 76.4 88
Female 70.9 109 53.7 78 76.1 95
Total 72.5 220 60.8 165 76.3 183
Age group, 
months
0–11 (62.7) 44 (33) 28 (74.9) 40
12–23 72.2 99 63.0 67 84.9 72
24–59 78.3 77 67.5 70 67.1 71
Total 72.5 220 60.8 165 76.3 183
N 164 112 136
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 79
Table 61. Children ages 0–59 months old with diarrhea and treatment within two weeks of
interview
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
% N % N % N
Had diarrhea in 
past 2 weeks 19.5 381 14.0 376 19.1 368
Sought treatment
Sex 
Male 82.7 74 48.1 53 70.6 64
Female 68.3 69 (36.8) 40 (68.8) 42
Total 75.3 143*+ 42.8 93** 69.9 106
Age group, 
months
0–11 (72.7)2 26 –
1 12 –
1 23
12–23 78.3 77 49.4 52 77.7 56
24–59 (71.4) 40 (34.1) 29 (55.4) 27
Total 75.3 143*+ 42.8 93** 69.9 106
**Versus control, p<0.01
++Versus HES-only, p<0.01
***Versus control, p<0.001
1N <25
Parentheses indicate N= 25–49
Across study groups, more youth ages 15–17 years old had an HIV test and knew their test result than youth 
ages 10–14 years old (Figure 9). The full ISVP study group had a significantly higher percentage of 10- to 17-
year-old youth who had been tested for HIV within the past 12 months and knew their HIV status compared 
with both HES-only youth (p<0.05) and control group youth (p<0.01).
80 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Figure 9. Youth ages 10–17 years old tested for HIV within the past 12 months who knew their HIV 
status
**Versus control, p<0.01
+Versus HES-only, p<0.05
Additionally, statistically significant within-group differences by age group and sex were found for HIV 
testing in youth 10–17 years old (Table 62). Across study groups, a higher percentage of males ages 15–17
years compared to males ages 10–14 years reported being tested for HIV and receiving their test results in the 
past 12 months. For females in the full ISVP group, statistically significant differences were found for 10–14-
year-olds and 15–17-year-oldsalso (p<0.05 and p<0.001, respectively). Significant differences were also found 
within the HES-only group favoring older males over younger males (p<0.001). Finally, within study groups,
differences between sexes within age groups were only statistically significant in the control group for the 
older age group (p<0.05); males ages 15–17 years old were more likely to report having been tested for HIV 
and knowing their test result compared to females of the same age.
Table 62. Youth ages 10–17 years old tested for HIV within the past 12 months and knew their HIV 
status
Full ISVP HES only Control1
Male* Female*** Total Male*** Female Total Male** Female Total
Age groups, 
years, %
10–14 14.5 14.2 14.3 10.7 8.7 9.8 7.4 8.8 8.1
15–17 27.8 34.7 30.8 31.0 17.3 24.7 21.9 9.3 15.1
Total 18.7 20.0 19.3 17.3 11.4 14.6 12.1 9.0 10.6
N 547 553 1100 601 561 1162 361 358 719
*Within group and sex, differences between age groups, p<0.05
**Within group and sex, differences between age groups, p<0.01
***Within group and sex, differences between age groups, p<0.001
1Within control group and age group, difference between males and females, p<0.05
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10-14 years 15-17 years
Full ISVP**+ (N=1,100) HES-Only (N=1,162) Control (N=719)
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 81
Between 80 and 90 percent of all caregivers had been tested for HIV (Table 63). Caregivers in the full ISVP 
study group were significantly more likely to report ever having had an HIV test than both the HES-only
(p<0.001) and control (p<0.01) study groups. Caregivers over 50 years old were the least likely to be tested 
for HIV across all study groups.
Table 63. Characteristics of caregivers who reported having had an HIV test1
Characteristics Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex
Male 84.9 53 84.9 54 65.8 63
Female 90.1 1,391 79.7 1,273 80.4 1,150
Total 89.9 1,444*+ 79.9 1,327 79.7 1,213
Age groups, years
<18 –
2 1 –
2 0 –
2 2
18-30 96.0 201 89.6 165 92.0 221
31-50 94.8 825 87.5 754 88.1 653
50+ 79.0 417 61.9 408 53.1 337
Total 89.9 1,444*+ 79.9 1,327 79.7 1,213
1Caregiver may or may not know the HIV test result
2N <25
*versus control, p<0.01
+versus HES-only, p<0.001
Among caregivers who were tested for HIV and knew their test results (Table 64), a statistically significant 
higher percentage was detected in the full ISVP group compared to HES-only (p<0.0001) and to control 
(p<0.001). A greater proportion of caregivers in the younger age groups had HIV tests and knew their results 
than the older age groups.
Table 64. Characteristics of caregivers who had an HIV test in the last 12 months and 
knew their test results 
Characteristics Full ISVP HES only Control
Sex, %
Male 55.6 45.7 25.3
Female 63.5 42.3 40.7
Age groups, years, %
16–24 (81.7)1
(63.5) 56.4
25–34 71.8 48.6 51.1
35–44 69.5 49.9 47.8
45–54 54.9 40.2 27.1
55–64 57.2 26.0 20.8
65+ 43.1 13.3 12.7
Total 63.1*+ 42.4 39.9
N 1,444 1,327 1,213
+Versus HES-only, p<.0001
*Versus control, p<0.001
1Parentheses indicate N is between 25 and 49
82 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Youth HIV/AIDS Knowledge and Prevention Behaviors
In all study groups, roughly 80 percent of 10- to 17-year-old youth who had heard of HIV knew that limiting 
sex to one partner and using condoms can help prevent HIV infection (Table 65). Results were similar by sex 
but were increased for the older age group (15- to 17-year-olds) compared with the younger age group (10- to 
14-year-olds). There were no significant differences between the study groups. 
Table 65. Knowledge of HIV prevention strategies among 10- to 17-year-old youth 
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Knows how to 
prevent HIV, 
% N
Knows how to 
prevent HIV, 
% N
Knows how 
to prevent 
HIV, % N
Sex
Male 81.2 413 79.8 444 81.2 260
Female 75.3 413 74.8 423 78.5 263
Total 78.5 826 77.4 867 79.9 523
Age group, years
10–14 73.6 554 69.8 552 72.6 307
15–17 86.9 272 87.4 315 89.4 216
Total 78.5 826 77.4 867 79.9 523
No statistically significant differences between totals for groups
Over 90% of youth across study groups reported never having had sexual intercourse (Table 66). Compared 
to youth in the control group, a significantly higher percentage of youth in the full ISVP and HES-only 
groups (p<0.05, p<0.01, respectively) reported having sexual intercourse within the last 12 months. Within 
group statistical tests on sex differences showed that females in HES-only were more likely than males to 
report having had sexual intercourse in the past 12 months.
Table 66. Sexual behavior among 10- to 17-year-old youth
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Male Female Total Male Female1
Total Male Female Total
Never had sexual 
intercourse, % 90.2 90.4 90.3 90.6 91.6 91.1 92.2 94.7 93.5
Had sexual intercourse in 
the last 12 months, % 2.4 4.7 3.5* 2.5 6.4 4.3** 1.6 1.0 1.3
N 547 553 1100 601 561 1162 361 358 719
*Versus control (p<.05)
**Versus control (p<.01)
1Within study group, females significantly higher than males, p<0.05
Among youth who had sexual intercourse in the past 12 months, less than one-third used a condom with 
their last sexual partner (Table 67). 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 83
Table 67. Condom use among youth ages 10–17 years who had sexual intercourse in the past 12 
months
Full ISVP HES only Control
Used condom with last sexual partner, % (32.5) (26.7) –
N 39 44 12
Parentheses indicate N is between 25 -49
Dashed line indicates N<25 and value has been suppressed
The sample sizes were too small for statistical testing.
Early Childhood Development
The percentages of children ages 36–59 months attending an early childhood development (ECD) program 
was small across study groups, ranging from about 12 percent to 38 percent. About three times more children
in the full ISVP group (p<0.001) attended and ECD program than in both the HES-only and the control
groups (Table 68).
Table 68. Characteristics of children 36–59 months old who attend an early childhood 
development program 
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex
Male 30.7 178 15.3 181 13.4 154
Female 45.5 186 11.5 177 9.7 141
Total 38.2 364* 13.6 358 11.6 295
Age group, 
months
36–47 23.8 184 10.9 184 4.5 156
48–59 51.4 180 16.6 174 19.3 139
Total 38.2 364* 13.6 358 11.6 295
*Versus HES-only and control, p<0.001
Nearly one-third of household members 15 years old or older engaged in four or more stimulating activities 
with a child ages 0–59 months old in the household in all three study groups (Table 69). In all three study 
groups, children 24–59 months old were more likely to have engaged in at least four stimulating activities 
with a household member than children in younger age groups. Boys and girls were similarly engaged across 
study groups. No significant differences were detected between the study groups. 
84 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 69. Characteristics of children ages 0–59 months who received four or more 
stimulating activities in the past week with a household member at least 15 years old, 
per caregiver report
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex 
Male 30.6 381 33.2 376 30.4 368
Female 36.4 444 30.8 361 34.1 354
Total 33.7 825 32 737 32.3 722
Age group, 
months
0–11 10.5 155 11.5 114 4.7 146
12–23 30.8 305 23.6 265 35.5 280
24–59 45.4 365 44.5 358 42.7 296
Total 33.7 825 32 737 32.3 722
No statistically significant differences between study groups for totals
Knowledge of child nutrition was similar across study groups. Most respondents in all study groups knew
how long a baby should be exclusively breastfed and two or more important times to wash their hands to 
prevent food contamination. (Tables 70-72). 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 85
Table 70. Caregivers who correctly answered nutrition test questions, full ISVP group
Ages for
breastmilk
only
Nutrition
for sick 
children
Malnutrition 
prevention in
<6-month-olds
Malnutrition 
prevention in
6- to 23-
month-olds
Hand washing 
hands to 
prevent food 
contamination 
Nutrition for
pregnant 
woman 
Correct responses, %1
Yes, % Yes, % Yes, % Yes, % Yes, % Yes, % 1–5 6–10 >10 None N
Sex 
Male 72.6 13.6 18.2 23.1 73.7 37.4 45.0 37.8 17.2 0.0 53
Female 80.9 15.1 24.9 35.1 81.1 48.5 25.9 54.1 19.5 0.4 1,391
Total 80.5 15.0 24.6 34.5 80.8 48.0 26.8 53.4 19.4 0.4 1,444
1No statistically significant differences between study groups for total correct responses
Table 71. Caregivers who correctly answered nutrition test questions, HES-only group
Ages for
breastmilk
only
Nutrition
for sick 
children
Malnutrition 
prevention 
in <6-month￾olds
Malnutrition 
prevention
in 6- to 23-
month-olds
Hand 
washing 
hands to 
prevent food 
contaminati
on 
Nutrition 
for
pregnant 
woman 
Correct responses, %1
Yes, % Yes, % Yes, % Yes, % Yes, % Yes, % 1–5 6–10 >10 None N
Sex
Male 38.4 15.6 10.1 21.9 70.6 31.8 53.4 41.2 5.4 0.0 54
Female 77.0 15.4 26.7 39.1 82.1 53.1 21.1 58.8 19.8 0.3 1,273
Total 75.6 15.4 26.1 38.5 81.6 52.3 22.3 58.2 19.3 0.3 1,327
1No statistically significant differences between study groups for total correct responses
86 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 72. Caregivers who correctly answered nutrition test questions, control group
Ages for
breastmilk
only
Nutrition for 
sick 
children
Malnutrition 
prevention in
<6-month￾olds
Malnutrition 
prevention in
6- to 23-
month-olds
Hand washing 
hands to 
prevent food 
contamination 
Nutrition for
pregnant woman 
Correct responses , %1
Yes, % Yes, % Yes, % Yes, % Yes, % Yes, % 1–5 6–10 >10 None N
Sex
Male 67.7 3.0 20.2 19.3 73.9 44.5 40.8 47.5 10.3 1.4 63
Female 81.0 11.2 29.7 34.5 81.6 45.7 24.2 57.3 18.3 0.2 1,150
Total 80.3 10.7 29.3 33.7 81.2 45.7 25.1 56.8 17.8 0.3 1,213
1No statistically significant differences between study groups for total correct responses
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 87
Household Use of Program-related Services
For the 27 services offered by Twiyubake or by other programs in the past six months, there was a general 
trend of households in the full ISVP group accessing more services than those in the HES-only or control 
groups (Table 73).
Table 73. Use of program-related services 
Service Full ISVP, % HES-only, % Control, %
HIV test 73.3 49.0 42.5
Farmer Field School 36.4 14.0 9.2
Free Small Livestock 8.5 8.5 5.5
Free seed 12.4 9.2 3.7
Nutritional advice in caring for children 28.1 24.9 15.2
Free food 7.5 6.7 9.7
Information on how to prevent HIV and other STIs 75.2 50.9 41.6
Training on Early Childhood Development 42.2 31.8 22.7
Livelihood training/income generation 43.8 31.4 11.5
Community savings/lending group 84.6 67.2 17.6
Life skills training 54.6 36.4 17.6
Vocational training scholarships 9.5 5.6 1.6
Workforce readiness training 23.7 17.2 4.2
Psychosocial support from a home visitor or social worker 11.2 6.8 2.6
Free school supplies or school uniform 80.2 9.3 5.8
Birth registration support 11.6 8.2 4.9
Mosquito nets 89.8 81.9 73.9
Information on child protection 43.4 25.5 18.8
Nutrition messaging for pregnant or lactating women 40.6 27.7 21.6
One Stop (GBV center) 27.1 17.8 6.3
Information on sexual and reproductive health and rights 44.2 25.1 14.0
Information on positive masculinity and gender equity 42.4 29.6 15.6
Umugoroba w'ababyeyi (parental evenings) 69.9 65.3 43.8
HIV treatment and care 41.3 32.5 16.4
Advice on childhood immunization 41.6 32.7 23.1
Positive parenting 41.5 31.1 15.9
Growth monitoring for children 49.0 38.4 26.0
N 1,428 1,309 1,216
GBV: gender-based violence, STI, sexually transmitted infection
88 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
DISCUSSION
The ISVP impact evaluation seeks to measure the impact of the interventions on the health, education and 
economic well-being of vulnerable children and their families. This survey established initial indicators for 
background characteristics, primary and secondary outcomes, and exposure to the project or similar 
interventions in both the treatment and control groups.
Balance Across Evaluation Groups
We tested 89 indicators for balance across the groups. Of these, about one-third were statistically significant, 
indicating imbalance across groups. The three primary study outcomes, household hunger, regular attendance 
of secondary school among 13- to 17-year-olds, and whether caregivers knew the HIV status of their children 
all had statistically significant differences across groups. Imbalance was most common for outcomes related 
to child health, economic status, and basic demographics, such as household size and caregiver characteristics.
Given that the program had been operating for 12 to 18 months at the time of data collection, it is not 
surprising that many of the outcomes were different between groups.
Key Outcomes
Twiyubake seeks to improve economic well-being, health, and education outcomes. Looking at economic 
well-being indicators, nearly three-quarters of households were able to access money to pay for unexpected 
expenses. However, the percentage of households reporting moderate or severe household hunger ranged
from about 65 percent to 78 percent and was highest in the full ISVP group and the lowest in the control 
group. Median consumption per day per capita ranged from 310 RWF (HES-only) to 325 RWF (full ISVP
and control). Roughly half of daily consumption was for food and beverages, followed by energy, and
housing.
Key child health and nutrition outcomes were poor for IYCF practices and HIV testing, but more
encouraging for undernutrition and birth registration outcomes. Caregivers across study groups reported high 
rates of birth registration (range: 79% to 85 %), with the highest rates in the full ISVP and control groups. 
The Government of Rwanda carried out a national campaign on birth registration before this data collection, 
which likely influenced this outcome. The percentage of children whose MUAC scores indicated 
undernourishment ranged from about 2 percent to 6 percent, and was lowest for controls. The percentage of 
caregivers reporting that their children ages 6–59 months received the recommended IYCF practices was very 
low across groups. About 16 percent of caregivers reported that children ages 6–59 months old ate from 4 or 
more food groups in the past 24 hours and between nine percent and 14 percent reported their child had the 
minimum recommended meal frequency within the same time frame. The percentage of caregivers who knew 
their child’s HIV status ranged from about 17 percent to 30 percent, with the highest percentage in the full 
ISVP group, followed by HES-only and control groups. Twiyubake conducted an HIV testing awareness 
campaign in full ISVP areas shortly before this data collection, which likely accounts for the differences 
observed. 
Regarding education, caregivers reported low school attendance, about 56 percent to 64 percent; the highest 
attendance was in the full ISVP group and the lowest was in the HES-only group. School attendance was 
highest for children ages 7–12 years (range: 66.3% to 71.2%, control group and full ISVP, respectively) 
School progression rates were high for those enrolled in the last year as reported by caregivers (range: 83.8% 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 89
to 90.2%). For 13- to 17-year-olds, secondary school enrollment ranged from about 23 percent to 13 percent , 
and was highest in the full ISVP and control groups. Attendance in this age group was also low, about 10 
percent to 18 percent; the full ISVP and control groups had the highest attendance rates. Over half of 13- to 
17-year-old youth who progressed in the past year did so within primary school. Nearly 10 percent progressed 
from primary to secondary school and about eight percent progressed within secondary school. The study’s 
youth response rates were low, at 81 percent, and it is possible that our youth are somehow systematically 
different than other youth who were unable to or chose not to participate. The attendance rates among 13- to 
17-year-olds in this study, however, are comparable to those in the 2013–2014 Enquête Intégrale sur les 
Conditions de Vie des ménages (Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey) that showed 10.6 percent
attendance for the lowest wealth quintile and 16.8 percent for the second wealth quintile (NISR, 2016).
The use of health services trended highest in the full ISVP group. Growth monitoring of children reported by 
caregivers showed that about 60 percent to 70 percent had received some type of growth monitoring in the 
last 12 months. Treatment seeking for specific illnesses, such as fever and diarrhea, was consistently lowest in 
the HES-only group. Caregiver reports of treatment seeking for child fever was about 60 percent to 75
percent, more caregivers sought fever treatment in the control group, followed closely by the full ISVP group. 
Caregiver report of treatment seeking for child diarrhea was highest in the full ISVP group, followed by the 
control and HES-only groups (range of. 75 percent to 43 percent). Regarding use of HIV testing services
among 10- to 17-year-olds, the full ISVP had a highest proportion of respondents who had an HIV test, 
followed by the HES-only and control groups (range: 39.2% to 26.4%). For HIV testing among caregivers, 
the full ISVP group had a statistically significant higher (p<0.001) percentage of tested caregivers in the past 
12 months who knew their test result (63.1%) compared to HES-only (42.4%) and control (39.9%) groups.
Participation of female caregivers in household decision making was high across study groups, about 77 
percent. Statistically significant (p<0.05) differences favoring the HES-only group versus the control group
were found in the percent of female caregivers who participated in decision making for four of the six 
household decisions individually: caregivers’ own health care, children’s healthcare, children’s food, and early 
child education. 
There were no significant differences between groups in household financial decision making. Among 
married female caregivers who received cash earnings, no statistically significant differences between study 
groups were found with respect to decision making about how to use the wife’s earnings. The majority 
decided how to use their earnings jointly with their husbands (55.2% to 61.8%); about one-third decided 
mainly on their own. Among married female caregivers whose husbands received cash earnings, the majority 
also reported deciding jointly with their husbands how to use the husband’s earnings (59.2% to 63.0%); about 
20 percent reported that their husbands mainly decided.
For IPV, the range of female caregivers affected ranged from about 20 percent to 26 percent, with the highest 
rate in the HES-only group; the differences between groups were not statistically significant. We further 
explored the IPV data and its relationship with decision-making power. Within the full ISVP and the control
groups only, we found statistically significant differences in the experience of any IPV based on how 
decisions were made about a woman’s cash earnings. The reports of IPV were lower when the respondent 
and her husband jointly decided how to spend her earnings compared to when either partner made the 
decision alone. Results for rates of IPV were similar for decisions about the husband’s cash earnings.
The GEM scale was used to measure gender-equitable beliefs among youth ages 13–17 years old, with higher 
scores indicating more gender-equitable beliefs. The mean composite GEM scale scores were similar across 
groups, ranging from 14.1 (HES-only group) to 16.0 (full ISVP). For the 13- to 17-year-old age group, those 
90 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
enrolled in school had more gender-equitable views than those not enrolled; however, sample sizes for youth 
not enrolled in school were too small for statistical analysis. In the full ISVP group, youth exposed to a 
program that discusses positive masculinity reported less gender-equitable beliefs. The numbers of youth 
exposed to this program in HES-only and control groups were very low.
Exposure to Interventions
Households were asked about their use of various services and activities offered by the program in one or 
both program groups, ranging from community savings groups to training on early childhood development 
and information on HIV testing and treatment. There was a clear trend of greater exposure in the full ISVP
group, followed by HES-only and control groups.
Surprisingly, 15–23 percent of households in the intervention groups reported that no one in the household 
had any savings. By default, all households in these groups are participating in an ISLG group and should, 
therefore, have savings. It is possible that the wording of the question made participants think that group 
savings were excluded from the question. Also troubling was the low percentage of households reporting use 
of and access to community or group savings activities in the full ISVP (85%) and HES-only (67%) groups. 
Clarifying questions should be added to the end line survey to more accurately capture household 
participation in these groups.
The proportion of households in program areas that were not taking part in the Twiyubake program was 
small, about 2 percent. Conversely, over three percent of households in the control areas self-identified as 
taking part in the Twiyubake program. Only three out of 24 names had a match with Twiyubake beneficiary 
data. Based on the differences in locations of those three households, they could be different households; it is 
common in Rwanda for people to have the exact same names. It is also possible that these people had moved 
because they were in different provinces. The RPOs had not reported this, so we concluded that they were
not Twiyubake beneficiaries. 
Implications for the Impact Evaluation
Comparability of Program and Control Groups
Results from balance testing suggests that the control group was different from the program groups and the 
program groups were different from each other in some systematic ways. This unsurprised us considering our 
sampling methods. The control group was selected from the Ubedehe level one and two list, without further 
screening. The program beneficiary households, however, were selected based on those lists and then further 
screened to reach the most vulnerable of those in Ubedehe one and two. It may be that the additional screens 
applied to the program groups yielded a population with systematic differences from the control group. In 
addition, the program had been rolled out before data collection, and so some differences between full ISVP
and HES-only groups would be expected at this time, although on a short-term outcome level.
The results of the balance testing, overall, reinforced the decision to employ a DID with fixed-effects 
approach for estimating program effects. This strategy will control for both observed and unobserved time￾invariant differences between program and control areas and will include individual-level observed 
background characteristics (e.g., caregiver age, marital status, sex of head of household, and education) in the 
statistical models to account for their potential impact on the outcome indicators. A DID analysis also allows 
for differences in outcome indicators at the initial time of data collection when estimating project impact.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 91
Using a fixed-effects specification in a DID model will allow us to improve the precision of our impact 
estimates by reducing the variability of the error term.
Contamination or Spillover
At the time of evaluation design, the effect of other interventions was assumed to be small, as random 
allocation minimizes the risk of differential coverage of other interventions in the intervention and control 
areas. Theoretically, randomization should distribute the influence of other activities uniformly across the 
entire study population, assuming the program is homogeneously rolled out. Over time, however, we learned 
that several programs were rolled out either by Twiyubake itself or by other implementing partners in study 
sectors; these other programs are not being homogeneously rolled out. For example, PEPFAR DREAMS 
activities are being rolled out in seven of the study sectors, potentially affecting 0.1 percent of full ISVP
households, 21.9 percent of HES-only households, and 0.7 percent of control households. The focus areas of 
DREAMS were specifically chosen for high HIV prevalence, e.g., existence of truck stops, key population 
presence, and preexisting OVC activity coverage. We will need to add questions at end line to better assess 
whether household members participated in DREAMS-related and other activities, particularly in the control 
areas. For the program groups, Twiyubake will have beneficiary records that we can check against study 
participant households to be able to take this into account in the end line analyses. Considering the large 
percentage of potentially affected HES-only households, the ability of the evaluation to detect differences 
between full ISVP and HES-only and between HES-only and control may be hampered.
We will continue to monitor other interventions through collection of programmatic data from ISVP partners 
and sector stakeholders. Data at the household level will also be collected again at end line for participation in 
ISVP activities, as well as in other economic strengthening, health and nutrition, agriculture, or education 
programs and activities in their communities. 
Selection Bias and Confounding 
There is potential for selective program participation on behalf of the eligible population targeted. Some 
families may have declined participation when offered the full ISVP program or the HES-only package of 
interventions. However, there is no reason to believe that the rate of refusal or the reasons for refusal would 
have varied between the two intervention groups (full ISVP and HES-only), because program promotion 
centered on ISLG participation and enrollment will require beneficiaries to join an ISLG. Only after 
beneficiary enrollment were the full ISVP wrap-around health and social services offered to beneficiaries. 
Regarding the control population, we could not identify the percentage of the eligible population who would 
have declined program participation, because we did not offer them the opportunity to enroll. 
Household and youth survey response rates suggest that there may have been selective survey participation 
among the eligible population targeted for the study. There were statistically significant (p<0.01) differences 
between groups for response rates, with full ISVP (92.4%) and HES-only (85.9%) groups at higher household 
response rates than the control group (81.0%), and full ISVP groups responses rates were higher than the 
HES-only group. Youth response rates were significantly lower (p<0.05) for the full ISVP group (78.5%) 
compared to both HES-only (81.9%) and control (83.5%) groups. Also, interviewed youth were more likely 
to be enrolled in school than those who were sampled for the youth interview but refused, were not located, 
or did not complete the interview (see Table 77 in Appendix C). Since we found that the study groups were 
imbalanced, we will control for observable factors in the final analysis.
92 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
CONCLUSION
Balance testing for background characteristics, the primary and secondary outcomes of interest, and exposure 
to project or similar interventions in both the intervention and comparison groups suggest that the program 
and control groups are different from each other in systematic ways. Imbalance was most common for 
outcomes related to child health, economic status, and basic demographics. Observable factors will be 
controlled for in the final analysis to account for this imbalance. Potential for contamination in the study 
areas was also identified. This needs to be considered in revisions of surveys and analysis at end line so that 
the evaluation may better understand and control for the potential influence of any contamination on key 
outcomes.
NEXT STEPS 
End line data collection is planned for late 2018. The same households will be interviewed to evaluate the 
impact of Twiyubake on the outcomes of interest. A DID approach will be used to compare pre and post 
intervention differences in outcomes between the project and control groups. We will also conduct key 
informant interviews with district-level officials and ISVP program staff to assess whether there have been 
any significant changes in the study areas over time that may have affected implementation of the 
intervention and outcomes relevant to the evaluation.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 93
REFERENCES
Ballard, T., Coates, J., Swindale, A., & Deitchler, M. (2011). Household Hunger Scale: Indicator Definition and 
Measurement Guide. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance II Project, FHI 360. Retrieved 
from https://www.fantaproject.org/monitoring-and-evaluation/household-hunger-scale-hhs
Fleiss, J. L., B. Levin, and M. C. Paik. (2003). Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 3rd ed. New York:
Wiley Kolenikov, S., & Angeles, G. (2004). The Use of Discrete Data in Principal Component Analysis: Theory, 
Simulations, and Applications to Socioeconomic Indices. Chapel Hill, NC, USA. CPC/MEASURE Working Paper No. 
WP-04-85.
National AIDS control Commission (CNLS). (2009). Rwanda National Strategic Plan on HIV and AIDS 2009–
2012. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s18409en/s18409en.pdf 
MEASURE Evaluation. (2015). Collecting PEPFAR Essential Survey Indicators: A Supplement to the OVC 
Survey Tools. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: MEASURE Evaluation. Retrieved from
https://www.measureevaluation.org/resources/publications/ms-14-90/at_download/document
National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR). (2015). Rwanda Poverty Profile Report. Kigali. Retrieved 
from http://www.statistics.gov.rw/publication/rwanda-poverty-profile-report-results-eicv-4
The World Bank Group. (2017). Rwanda. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/country/rwanda. 
NISR, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP), Ministry of Health (MOH), The DHS Program. 
Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey 2014–15. (2016). Rockville, Maryland, USA. Retrieved from
https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR316/FR316.pdf
National Institute of Statistics Rwanda. (2012). Customized International Standard Classification for Occupation (ISCO￾08): The Rwanda Classification Manual. Kigali, Rwanda. Retrieved from 
http://www.statistics.gov.rw/publication/rwanda-classification-manual-customized-international-standard￾classification-occupation
National Institute of Statistics Rwanda. (2016). EICV4 - Education thematic Report. Kigali, Rwanda. Retrieved 
from http://www.statistics.gov.rw/publication/eicv-4-thematic-report-education
94 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL METHODS
Training and Fieldwork
Training and Pretesting 
Seventy enumerators and 10 supervisors were initially trained by NUR/SPH and UNC staff. Training occurred 
from October 17, 2016 to November 5, 2016. There was a gap in local ministry approval, which delayed the 
start of data collection. A refresher training and two days of pilot testing was carried out after the approval was 
received. Before the refresher training, supervisors tested the tablets from March 6–10, 2017. The refresher 
training included 64 enumerators and 10 supervisors, and took place from March 13–17, 2017. Piloting took 
place March 20–21, 2017.
Training for Enumerators and Supervisors
After introductions and an overview of the project, candidates were trained on the use of tablets by NUR/SPH 
and UNC staff. Other training topics included a detailed review of each survey module, during which the intent 
of all questions and responses were reviewed. The Kinyarwanda translation of each question was also reviewed 
to ensure appropriate translation, and questionnaires were revised accordingly. In addition, enumerators were 
trained to protect human subjects, including special ethical considerations for vulnerable populations, such as 
those who have experienced intimate partner violence, and interviewing techniques. Hard copy questionnaires 
and enumerator manuals were provided to all enumerators and supervisors to assist in learning the different 
survey modules. Training included role plays and tablet practice. Supervisors had an additional two days of 
training to review the supervisors’ manual, the process for household listing and sampling, daily supervisor 
checks, and data management. Refresher training included extensive role-playing on use of the tablets.
Pretesting
The pretest of tools was conducted by all supervisors and enumerators on the tablets in a sector outside of the 
evaluation sample (Mageragere sector, Nyarugenge district). In total, there were 10 field teams, each comprising
an average of one supervisor and six enumerators. Pretesting was observed and assisted by a survey manager, 
the local primary investigator, and two UNC staff. The survey time in households was extensive (3.5+ hours) 
and it was determined that some content needed to be changed or cut to meet daily household goals. Revisions 
were made to the instruments to allow for an average within-household time of roughly three hours.
Selection of the Data Collection Team
During the training and pretest, each enumerator was evaluated by a different supervisor based on the following 
elements: mastering the questionnaire and tablet navigation, as well as the ability to interact with the 
interviewees. Based on their average marks, the best enumerators were selected for the data collection and 
others were kept as replacements. Before the data collection started, one supervisor informed SPH that he 
would not be available. Training another supervisor was not possible due to the short notice. The research team 
decided to have only nine teams composed of one supervisor and six enumerators each. 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 95
Fieldwork 
Household Listing 
The teams were charged with locating the villages selected by the MEASURE Evaluation researchers, 
introducing the study to the village leaders, and facilitating a household identification process. The process was 
different for the program versus control groups.
Control Group 
Four supervisors visited the 50 villages selected for the control group of the study. They obtained the list of
contacts of local authorities (executive secretary of the administrative sector and the village head) with the 
support of the Twiyubake program local implementing organization staff. Each supervisor was assigned three 
to five sectors. Each supervisor called to inform both local authorities about the study objectives and arranged
for the visit either in their respective administrative cells or at a place convenient for them. Supervisors also 
requested that they bring to the meeting the list of all households (i.e., a register) currently living in their village; 
the head of the village keeps records of all household members living in the village. On the day of the visit, each 
supervisor presented all study authorization letters. Thereafter, supervisors crosschecked whether the person 
whose names were on the study list was also on the list of households of the village and confirmed that the 
person was still living in the village. 
During this process, the field team found that the MVC lists (the sampling frame used by MEASURE 
Evaluation team to select households to interview) had many quality issues, such as duplicated names of 
children and children with parents or guardians’ names misspelled or missing. Also, many children were 
recorded as living in a separate household, yet they were part of the same household. In addition, some 
households moved to other unknown locations. The sample of households to survey in the control site was 
then too small, considering these problems. MEASURE Evaluation, therefore, decided to conduct a census of 
households in Ubudehe categories one and two who were not already included on the original study list, in all 
control sites. The field team re-contacted village heads and requested that they bring the list of all households in 
Ubudehe categories 1 and 2 (Ubudehe lists) to a meeting. The field team added all new households with a child 
ages 10–17 years old (the inclusion criterion) in Ubudehe categories one and two to the final list of households 
obtained in the first listing process.
Program Groups
Program group sectors did not require a household listing, as they already had lists of beneficiaries from the 
Twiyubake program. Before data collection started, the local teams contacted all villages and informed them 
about the study and planned visit. On the day of the visit, the supervisor introduced the team and the study to 
the head of the village or the deputy and handed over copies of approval and authorization letters. Supervisors 
got assistance from heads of villages and community health workers to identify beneficiary households on the 
program lists.
Data Collection
Data collection began on April 3, 2017 in Kigali city to address any additional field issues before the team 
moved to remote areas. In addition, the research team decided to start in intervention sites only because the list 
of households to survey in control sites was not yet ready until May 15, 2017. The teams worked from Monday 
to Saturday, except when they had to travel to another district. The data collection paused during several 
periods, during observance of the Genocide Memorial in April, and for two weeks in early May for the control 
household listing to be redone (see above explanation under Household Listing). The first round of data 
collection ended July 7, 2017. The household lists were then checked against data and it was found that one 
supervisor had not completed several sectors on their list. The team returned to the field from August 21, 2017 
96 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
to September 2, 2017 to interview the missed households and double check other households in other 
supervisor sectors noted as missing, so as to confirm their status. 
Quality control
Several approaches were implemented to ensure data quality. The Microsoft Windows tablets used for data
collection were password protected and their hard drives were encrypted with BitLocker. The data capture 
system forced all relevant questions to be answered, contained programmed skip patterns, and value sets to 
constrain the allowable answers for each question. In addition, the system contained programmed checks for 
inconsistent answers across questions and survey instruments, which forced the enumerator to indicate which 
question required correction. The system also made use of menus that allowed the enumerator to select the 
appropriate survey instrument and respondent to interview. Underlying the entire system was a control file that 
kept track of survey activities within a household and for all households assigned to the enumerator within a 
given village. 
In addition to the electronic data quality measures, enumerators maintained a hard copy tracking packet for 
each household. The enumerator recorded the result of each survey, the names and line numbers of eligible 
respondents, and the dates and times for callbacks. Supervisors monitored enumerator performance by 
observing interviews, reviewing data on the tablets, and running structural checks of the data. Data were then 
uploaded to UNC’s secure file transfer protocol (FTP) server and then further reviewed at UNC for 
completeness and identifying potential problems. 
Data Management and Confidentiality 
Once transferred, de-identified data were stored on a secure server at UNC. Identifiers were in a separate file 
linkable only to the survey data through a study-assigned household identification number. To ensure data 
protection and confidentiality across the study, all partners signed a data-use agreement and committed to using 
reasonable data protection measures, as outlined in the agreement and the IRB to protect the data.
The tablets were password protected, and the hard drives were encrypted. At the end of each data collection 
day, supervisors backed up the data on each enumerator’s tablet by making a copy on the tablet itself, and they 
also regularly transferred the backups from the enumerator tablet directly to UNC and National University of 
Rwanda, School of Public Health via secure FTP in keeping with UNC and local IRB data security 
requirements. 
Sampling Size Estimation and Design
Sample Size Estimation
Following Fleiss, Levin, & Paik (2003), we employed the following basic sample size estimator for comparison 
of proportions 𝑝1 and 𝑝2 across two populations (populations 1 and 2):
𝑛1 =
𝑛′
4
∙ [1 + {1 +
2 ∙ (𝑟 + 1)
𝑛′ ∙ 𝑟 ∙ |𝑝1 − 𝑝2
|
}
1/2
]
2
𝑛2 = 𝑟 ∙ 𝑛1
𝑛
′ =
[𝑧1−𝛼
2
⁄
∙ {(𝑟 + 1) ∙ 𝑝̅∙ 𝑞̅}
1
2
⁄ + 𝑧1−𝛽 ∙ (𝑟 ∙ 𝑝1 ∙ 𝑞1 + 𝑝2 ∙ 𝑞2
)
1
2
⁄
]
2
𝑟 ∙ (𝑝1 − 𝑝2
)
2
where,
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 97
𝑝̅=
(𝑝1 + 𝑟 ∙ 𝑝2
)
(𝑟 + 1)
𝑞̅ = 1 − 𝑝̅
𝑞1 = 1 − 𝑝1
𝑞2 = 1 − 𝑝2
and,
𝑍1−𝛼
2
⁄
and 𝑍1−𝛽
are critical values from the standard normal distribution. This is essentially the conventional sample size 
estimator for determining sample sizes 𝑛1 and 𝑛2 (constrained2 so that 𝑛2 = 𝑟 ∙ 𝑛1) sufficient to detect with 
power 1 − 𝛽 and 𝛼 significance a difference between samples of 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 for some proportion-based indicator. 
The first of these equations reflects a “continuity correction”.
Other assumptions about key parameters driving this sample size estimate included an anticipated design effect 
(or two for indicator one, and three for indicator two), the number of 13- to 17-year-olds we expected to find 
per household (0.7) and the household nonresponse rate (0.965050733). Making such key parameter 
assumptions is somewhat challenging in a society like Rwanda where fertility levels are in flux. We regard these 
sampling parameter assumptions as conservative, based on projections of observed values for them through the 
2010 Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) (e.g., the response rate was based on the lowest response 
rate experienced across the three DHS surveys from 2005 to 2010).
Sampling Design
Sample selection of all units satisfied probability sampling. Below the sector, the administrative units are cells 
and then villages. We sampled directly from the full list of villages across the sectors assigned to each domain 
(i.e., villages served as primary sampling units within each domain). Selection of villages was complicated by the 
wide variation of the size measure (number of participant households within village) across villages. This 
required an iterative selection method for villages in order to obtain a sample that was of the target size and also
confined to a practical number of villages for interview purposes and given study resources. The probability of 
selection for villages was obtained via simulation: this iterative selection method was repeated a large number of 
times and the percentage of those replications that a given village was selected is a highly accurate 
approximation of its probability. Moreover, simulation of the iterative village selection method was used to 
ensure that the requirements of probability sampling were met for villages (namely, that each village had a 
positive, known probability of selection from this process). The village-level weight is then simply the inverse of 
this probability selection. 
Selection of households proceeded along two tracks. First, per the original design, we selected all participant 
households in participant villages. However, on entry into the villages, we discovered some participants not on 
the participant list (the analog in control areas is that we discovered Ubedehe level one and two households not 
on the list). To ensure probability sampling of participant(Ubedehe) households within selected villages, we 
selected a proportion of the unlisted households (as identified by village leaders) in each village via simple equal 
probability of selection method (EPSEM) sampling. Weights were adjusted for nonresponse. Within-household 
variation in weights reflects the differential nonresponse of subpopulations within households, and in some 
cases, within household selection via EPSEM from them. Within each selected household in all three groups we 
 
2 In other words, 𝑟 defines the ratio of the two sample sizes: 𝑟 = 𝑛2⁄𝑛1
.
98 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
interviewed the following: (1) all eligible caretakers, (2) the primary ISLG members in the program groups, and 
(3) a randomly selected 10- to 17-year-old.
Household Wealth Calculation
Household wealth was determined by constructing a wealth index via a polychoric principal components 
analysis (Kolenikov & Angeles, 2004). Both housing characteristics (i.e., access to electricity, source of drinking 
water, materials used to construct the walls, floors, and roof, type of toilet, number of rooms for sleeping, 
cooking fuel, type of household ownership) and possession of various durable goods (e.g., land, dressing table, 
mortar and pestle, bed, table, chair, radio, mobile phone, farming assets, and livestock) were included in the 
model. Categorical variables relating to housing characteristics, such as source of drinking water and material of 
walls, were recoded to ordinal variables, with higher value categories representing households with a higher 
socioeconomic status based on the quality of the source or material. These categorical variables, dichotomous 
ownership variables, and those variables that are continuous were analyzed using the polychoric principal 
components analysis to produce a common factor score for each household. The resulting factor score was 
used to determine wealth quintiles.
Ethical Considerations
The study obtained written informed consent from all participants. Special population considerations were
necessary. For adolescents, parental or caretaker consent was required in addition to the consent of the 
adolescent; for female caregivers, special consent was required for administration of IPV questions. For the 
latter, the team followed the World Health Organization (2001) ethical and safety recommendations for 
research on IPV. Precautions included the following:
• Names of respondents are not disclosed and were excluded from all data sets.
• Instruction was built into the survey module requiring the interviewer to continue the interview only if 
privacy was confirmed. If privacy could not be obtained, the interviewer was to skip the IPV module 
and explain in the tablet what happened.
• At the start of the IPV module, the respondent was read a statement to inform her that the following 
set of questions were personal and would explore different facets of the woman’s life. The statement 
also assured that her answers were confidential and would not be shared beyond the study team. This 
statement was in addition to the informed consent obtained at the start of the interview.
• Special training was provided for interviewers and supervisors to sensitize them to issues surrounding 
IPV and to the specific concerns regarding collection of data on violence. 
• Only one eligible female caregiver in each selected household was to be administered the IPV module 
questions. In households with more than one woman eligible for the caregiver survey, the woman 
administered the module would be randomly selected by the tablet. Interviewing only one woman per 
household for IPV questions minimized possible security breaches due to other household members 
knowing that IPV information was shared.
• Information on local organizations that provide services and referrals related to IPV was offered to all 
IPV respondents who wanted help.
Also, no information on HIV status was available to the study team, for example, the beneficiary list from ISVP 
did not have information about HIV status and the surveys did not ask participants to report their HIV status.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 99
APPENDIX B. SECTOR ASSIGNMENTS (CONFIDENTIAL)
Figure 10. Map of study group assignments
100 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 74. Study sectors and study group assignments
Province 
ID Province
District 
ID District
Sector 
ID Sector
Study arm 
assignment
4 Northern Province 44 Burera 4403 Cyanika Full ISVP
4 Northern Province 44 Burera 4410 Kinyababa Full ISVP
1 Kigali City 12 Gasabo 1203 Gikomero Full ISVP
4 Northern Province 45 Gicumbi 4509 Miyove Full ISVP
2 Southern Province 24 Huye 2402 Huye Full ISVP
2 Southern Province 24 Huye 2404 Kigoma Full ISVP
2 Southern Province 24 Huye 2405 Kinazi Full ISVP
2 Southern Province 24 Huye 2413 Simbi Full ISVP
3 Western Province 31 Karongi 3106 Murambi Full ISVP
3 Western Province 31 Karongi 3107 Murundi Full ISVP
5 Eastern Province 54 Kayonza 5401 Gahini Full ISVP
4 Northern Province 43 Musanze 4309 Muko Full ISVP
4 Northern Province 43 Musanze 4315 Shingiro Full ISVP
3 Western Province 37 Nyamasheke 3703 Cyato Full ISVP
3 Western Province 37 Nyamasheke 3705 Kagano Full ISVP
3 Western Province 37 Nyamasheke 3708 Karengera Full ISVP
3 Western Province 37 Nyamasheke 3709 Kirimbi Full ISVP
3 Western Province 37 Nyamasheke 3710 Macuba Full ISVP
3 Western Province 37 Nyamasheke 3711 Mahembe Full ISVP
3 Western Province 37 Nyamasheke 3712 Nyabitekeri Full ISVP
3 Western Province 37 Nyamasheke 3715 Shangi Full ISVP
1 Kigali City 11 Nyarugenge 1101 Gitega Full ISVP
3 Western Province 32 Rutsiro 3211 Nyabirasi Full ISVP
4 Northern Province 44 Burera 4401 Bungwe HES-only
4 Northern Province 44 Burera 4408 Kagogo HES-only
4 Northern Province 44 Burera 4413 Rugarama HES-only
1 Kigali City 12 Gasabo 1206 Jali HES-only
4 Northern Province 45 Gicumbi 4502 Bwisige HES-only
4 Northern Province 45 Gicumbi 4506 Kageyo HES-only
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 101
Province 
ID Province
District 
ID District
Sector 
ID Sector
Study arm 
assignment
4 Northern Province 45 Gicumbi 4516 Rukomo HES-only
2 Southern Province 28 Kamonyi 2808 Nyamiyaga HES-only
3 Western Province 31 Karongi 3111 Ruganda HES-only
5 Eastern Province 54 Kayonza 5406 Murundi HES-only
5 Eastern Province 54 Kayonza 5410 Rukara HES-only
5 Eastern Province 54 Kayonza 5412 Rwinkwavu HES-only
4 Northern Province 43 Musanze 4303 Gacaca HES-only
4 Northern Province 43 Musanze 4310 Musanze HES-only
4 Northern Province 43 Musanze 4312 Nyange HES-only
4 Northern Province 43 Musanze 4314 Rwaza HES-only
3 Western Province 37 Nyamasheke 3701 Bushekeri HES-only
1 Kigali City 11 Nyarugenge 1108 Nyamirambo HES-only
3 Western Province 32 Rutsiro 3203 Kigeyo HES-only
3 Western Province 32 Rutsiro 3204 Kivumu HES-only
3 Western Province 32 Rutsiro 3208 Musasa HES-only
4 Northern Province 44 Burera 4402 Butaro Control
4 Northern Province 44 Burera 4405 Gahunga Control
4 Northern Province 44 Burera 4406 Gatebe Control
4 Northern Province 44 Burera 4407 Gitovu Control
4 Northern Province 44 Burera 4414 Rugengabari Control
1 Kigali City 12 Gasabo 1201 Bumbogo Control
1 Kigali City 12 Gasabo 1215 Rutunga Control
4 Northern Province 45 Gicumbi 4504 Cyumba Control
4 Northern Province 45 Gicumbi 4514 Nyankenke Control
2 Southern Province 24 Huye 2410 Ruhashya Control
2 Southern Province 24 Huye 2411 Rusatira Control
2 Southern Province 28 Kamonyi 2801 Gacurabwenge Control
3 Western Province 31 Karongi 3110 Rugabano Control
5 Eastern Province 54 Kayonza 5408 Ndego Control
1 Kigali City 13 Kicukiro 1308 Masaka Control
4 Northern Province 43 Musanze 4302 Cyuve Control
102 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Province 
ID Province
District 
ID District
Sector 
ID Sector
Study arm 
assignment
4 Northern Province 43 Musanze 4304 Gashaki Control
4 Northern Province 43 Musanze 4305 Gataraga Control
3 Western Province 37 Nyamasheke 3702 Bushenge Control
3 Western Province 37 Nyamasheke 3714 Ruharambuga Control
1 Kigali City 11 Nyarugenge 1106 Muhima Control
1 Kigali City 11 Nyarugenge 1109 Nyarugenge Control
3 Western Province 32 Rutsiro 3201 Boneza Control
3 Western Province 32 Rutsiro 3209 Mushonyi Control
4 Northern Province 44 Burera 4411 Kivuye HES-only
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 103
APPENDIX C. ADDITIONAL RESULTS
Table 75. Youth questionnaire completion outcome, among youth ages 10–17 years 
selected for the youth questionnaire
Full ISVP HES only Control
Enrolled** Not enrolled Enrolled* Not enrolled Enrolled** Not enrolled
Youth questionnaire 
outcome, %
Completed 82.2 50.8 83.4 69.3 87.2 72.4
Not at home 13.4 31.0 10.3 22.9 9.4 12.7
Other 4.4 18.2 6.3 7.8 3.4 14.9
N 1,241 134 1,146 253 689 147
*Within group differences, p<0.01
**Within group differences, p<0.001
Table 76. Characteristics of children 0–59 months engaged in any stimulation activity with 
a household member older than 15 years 
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex 
Male 79.1 381 79.5 376 82.9 368
Female 84.4 444 79.3 361 80.2 354
Total 81.9 825 79.4 737 81.6 722
Age group, months
0–11 59.6 155 61.6 114 65.4 146
12–23 84.4 305 82.4 265 85.3 280
24–59 88.8 365 82.5 358 85.9 296
Total 81.9 825 79.4 737 81.6 722
Table 77. Characteristics of children ages 0–50 months who were read book by a household 
member older than 15 years old 
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex Yes N Yes N Yes N
Male 12.1 379 14.0 376 11.6 368
Female 16.7 444 13.5 361 15.5 353
Total 14.5 823 13.8 737 13.5 721
Age group, months
0–11 3.2 155 5.4 114 0.0 146
12–23 12.9 304 9.0 265 15.6 280
24–59 20.5 364 19.8 358 18.2 295
Total 14.5 823 13.8 737 13.5 721
104 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 78. Characteristics of children ages 0–59 months who were told stories by a household 
member older than 15 years old 
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex Yes N Yes N Yes N
Male 32.3 379 36.6 376 31.3 368
Female 33.2 444 34.6 361 33.1 353
Total 32.8 823 35.6 737 32.2 721
Age group, months
0–11 5.3 155 11.0 114 1.0 146
12–23 26.7 304 27.0 265 34.5 280
24–59 49.0 364 49.5 358 45.6 295
Total 32.8 823 35.6 737 32.2 721
Table 79. Characteristics of children 0–59 months who had a household member older than 15 
years sing songs to them
Table 80. Characteristics of children 0–59 months who were taken outside by a household member 
older than 15 years 
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex 
Male 61.5 379 60.7 376 60.5 368
Female 65.4 444 60.0 361 62.5 353
Total 63.6 823 60.4 737 61.5 721
Age group, months
0–11 48.0 155 44.9 114 50.1 146
12–23 66.8 304 63.1 265 66.2 280
24–59 67.3 364 62.9 358 62.5 295
Total 63.6 823 60.4 737 61.5 721
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex 
Male 54.1 379 53.4 376 61.2 368
Female 63.5 444 58.3 361 60.8 353
Total 59.0 823 55.8 737 61 721
Age group, months
0–11 34.2 155 29.3 114 41.0 146
12–23 62.8 304 57.2 265 66.3 280
24–59 66.0 364 62.8 358 65.6 295
Total 59.0 823 55.8 737 61.0 721
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 105
Table 81. Characteristics of children 0–59 months who were played with by a household member 
older than 15 years 
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex 
Male 71.2 379 67.7 376 70.1 368
Female 73.1 444 71.3 361 73.4 353
Total 72.2 823 69.5 737 71.7 721
Age group, months
0–11 45.7 155 46.9 114 53.4 146
12–23 77.7 304 70.4 265 79.3 280
24–59 78.4 364 75.5 358 73.2 295
Total 72.2 823 69.5 737 71.7 721
Table 82. Characteristics of children 0–59 months old who engaged in naming, counting, and 
drawing with a household member older than 15 years 
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex 
Male 18.1 379 24.6 376 20.4 368
Female 24.8 444 25.5 361 22.2 353
Total 21.6 823 25.0 737 21.3 721
Age group, months
0–11 7.1 155 10.2 114 5.9 146
12–23 21.4 304 22.4 265 24.7 280
24–59 27.6 364 31.4 358 25.5 295
Total 21.6 823 25.0 737 21.3 721
Table 83. Characteristics of children with a birth certificate 
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex
Male 10.8 2,033 8.6 1,854 5.5 1,645
Female 9.3 2,177 12.7 1,786 6.9 1,607
Total 10.1 4,210 10.5 3,640 6.2 3,252
Age group, years
<5 13.7 825 13.4 737 7.2 722
5–9 10.5 1,304 8.1 1,092 7.0 959
10–14 8.6 1,401 12.0 1,183 5.0 1,022
15–17 8.1 680 8.9 628 5.3 549
Total 10.1 4,210 10.5 3,640 6.2 3,252
106 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table 84. Characteristics of children with a birth certificate observed by the interviewer 
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes, % N Yes, % N Yes, % N
Sex
Male 1.0 2,033 1.0 1,854 0.1 1,645
Female 1.2 2,177 1.8 1,786 0.1 1,607
Total 1.1 4,210+ 1.4 3,640* 0.1 3,252
Age group, years
<5 3.0 825 3.2 737 0.1 722
5–9 1.2 1,304 1.2 1,092 0.0 959
10–14 0.5 1,401 1.2 1,183 0.1 1,022
15–17 0.0 680 0.1 628 0.2 549
Total 1.1 4,210+ 1.4 3640* 0.1 3,252
+full ISVP significantly lower than HES-only (p<0.01)
*HES-only is significantly higher than control (p<0.01)
Table 85. Characteristics of children 0–59 months old with fever in the last two weeks
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Fever, % N Fever, % N Fever, % N
Sex
Male 31.6 381 22.8 376 23.1 368
Female 26.1 444 25.8 361 24.4 354
Total 28.7 825 24.3 737 23.7 722
Age group, years
0–11 months 33.1 155 22.9 114 26.1 146
12–23 months 32.7 305 28.1 265 24.7 280
24–59 months 23.7 365 21.8 358 21.6 296
Total 28.7 825 24.3 737 23.7 722
N 220 165 183
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 107
Table 86. Characteristics of children 0–59 months old with diarrhea in the past two weeks
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Diarrhea, % N Diarrhea, % N Diarrhea, % N
Sex
Male 19.5 381 14.0 376 19.1 368
Female 19.0 444 12.8 361 12.0 354
Total 19.3 825 13.4 737 15.6 722
Age group, months
0-11 19.4 155 10.5 114 15.5 146
12–23 27.7 305 22.4 265 22.9 280
24–59 12.3 365 7.4 358 8.3 296
Total 19.3 825 13.4 737 15.6 722
N 93 106
No statistically significant differences for totals between groups
Table 87. Educational progress of children during the last year 
Educational levels
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Male, 
%
Female, 
% N
Male, 
%
Female, 
% N
Male, 
%
Female, 
% N
Educational progress 
Within primary school 81.4 79.4 1,752 83.4 82.4 1,513 81.7 85.5 1,332
Primary to secondary
school 6.9 9.0 158 3.1 4.9 73 7.3 4.5 78
Within secondary school 4.4 4.4 111 3.0 4.4 80 4.3 6.3 88
Secondary to 
TVET/university –
1 –
1 16 –
1 –
1 4 –
1 –
1 3
Did not progress or 
repeated grade 6.5 6.0 166 10.3 8.1 137 6.3 3.5 84
Total 2,203 1,807 1,585
1 N <25 and values were suppressed
TVET, technical and vocational education and training
Table 88. Attendance of children enrolled in school during the last week of school 
Full ISVP HES only Control
Enrolled and missed zero days in the 
last week of instruction, % 66.0 60.3 65.6
Enrolled, but missed at least one day 
during last week of instruction, % 25.9 20.2 20.5
Not enrolled, % 8.1 19.5 13.9
N 2,917 2,492 2,152
108 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
*versus control, p<0.05
Table 89. Characteristics of caregivers who agreed that harsh physical punishment is an appropriate means of discipline in the home or 
school 
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES-only Control
Yes N Yes N Yes N
Sex 
Male 29.7 53 26.8 54 25.3 63
Female 47.1 1,391 37.2 1,273 40.3 1,150
Total 46.3 1,444*+ 36.8 1,327 39.5 1,213
Age group, years
<18 –
1 1 –
1 0 –
1 2
18–30 48.5 201 48.1 165 37.5 221
31–50 46.8 850 38.7 783 40.4 679
>50 44.4 392 27.8 379 39.2 311
Total 46.3 1,444*+ 36.8 1,327 39.5 1,213
*versus control, p<0.05
+versus HES-only, p<0.05
1N <25
Table 90. Youth 10–17 years old who had an HIV test within the past 12 months and knew their HIV status
Characteristics
Full ISVP HES only Control
Tested Not tested N Tested
Not 
tested N Tested
Not 
tested N
Sex
Male 18.7 81.3 547 17.3 82.7 601 12.1 87.9 361
Female 20.0 80.0 553 11.4 88.6 561 9.0 91.0 358
Total 19.3 80.7 1,100 14.6 85.4 1,162 10.6 89.4 719
Age group, years
10–14 14.3 85.7 799 9.8 90.2 815 8.1 91.9 482
15–17 30.8 69.2 301 24.7 75.3 347 15.1 84.9 237
Total 19.3 80.7 1,100* 14.6 85.4 1,162 10.6 89.4 719
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 109
APPENDIX D. SUMMARY OF BALANCE TEST RESULTS
Table 91. Summary of balance test results
Indicator, % (unless otherwise noted) Full ISVP N1 HES-only N2 Control N3
Population Characteristics
Household
 Household Population 7,866 6,825 6,229
 Sex of head of HH 1,428 1,309 1,216
 Male 55.2 52.7 67.6
 Female 44.8** 47.3** 32.4
 Household population size, mean 5.5**++ 5.2 5.0
 Orphan hood (percentage of HH with orphans <18 years 
old) 28.7 26.3 18.1
 Wealth quintiles 1,428 1,309 1,216
 Lowest 19.4 23.2 19.6
 Second 23.3 23.5 18.5
 Middle 19.1 19.6 20.3
 Fourth 21.3 18.8 19.9
 Highest 16.9 14.9 21.6
 Access to electricity 9.0 7.1 10.7
 Mobile phone 43.9 40.3* 49.6
 Urbanicity (HH in areas classified as urban) 0.4*+ 4.9 6.5
 Households with any improved, nonshared toilet/latrine 
facility 17.0**+ 12.6 13.3
 Households with any improved source of drinking water 79.1++ 67.0 73.3
 Children’s caregiver arrangements and orphanhood 4,299 3,711 3,336
 Biological mother is primary caregiver 78.4 82.7 84.5
 Biological father is primary caregiver 3.4 3.3 4.0
 Caregiver other than biological parent 18.2 13.9 11.6
 One or both parents dead 17.3 17.9 11.7
 Occupation of head of HH 1,428 1,309 1,216
 Professional/technical/managerial 0.1 0.3 0.5
 Sales and service 1.3 0.8 2.0
 Agricultural, forestry, fishery 75.4 80.9 73.4
 Craft and related trade workers 3.3 3.7 6.0
110 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
 Stationary plant and machine operators 0.4 0.2 0.5
 Elementary 3.1 3.8 6.9
 Unemployed 5.9 2.1 3.1
 Housewife/student/retired 2.7 2.2 2.2
 Disabled 7.2 5.1 4.4
Employment type of HH head 1,428 1,309 1,216
 Paid 73.2 76.5 73.8
 Unpaid 10.5 12.9 15.5
 No occupation 15.8**++ 9.5 9.7
 Missing 0.5 1.1 1.0
Caregiver characteristics
 Age, years 1,428 1,309 1,216
 16–24 4.1* 4.4 6.1
 25–34 20.7 20.9 26.7
 35–44 28.5 30.8 30.3
 45–54 25.3 24.6 19.1
 55–64 14.0 13.4 11.4
 65+ 7.3 5.9 6.0
 Marital status 1,444 1,327 1,213
 Married 38.9* 38.6* 46.1
 Cohabitating 12.9* 11.3** 17.6
 Divorced/Separated 9.1 12.4 8.2
 Widowed 26.6 25.8 19.6
 Never Married 12.4 11.8 8.4
 Ever attend school 1,444 1,327 1,213
 Yes 63.6 60.6 65.2
 No 36.4 39.3 34.8
 Highest level of education completed 1,444 1,327 1,213
 None/Preprimary 37.2 40 35.4
 Primary 58.2 56.2 57.9
 Secondary 3.6* 2.1*** 5.4
 TVET or higher 1.0 1.6 1.2
 Employment status 1,444 1,327 1,213
 Employed in last 3 months 75.1 75.8 77.4
 Employed in last 4–12 months 3.2 2.9 4.1
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 111
 Not employed in last 12 months 21.7 21.1 18.5
Youth
 Sex 1,100 1,162 719
 Male 54.0 53.2 50.3
 Female 46.0 46.8 49.7
 Age group, years 1,100 1,162 719
 10–14 70.1 67.8 64.6
 15–17 29.9 32.2 35.4
 Relationship of youth to primary caregiver 1,100 1,162 719
 Biological mother 81.0 87.1 83.2
 Biological father 3.1 3.3 4.0
 Step/Foster parent 1.6 0.7 1.5
 Sibling 1.1 0.5 1.5
 Aunt/Uncle 1.8 0.4 1.0
 Grandparent 10.3 7.4 8.0
 Nonfamily member 1.0 0.5 0.7
 Self 0.0 0.0 0.1
ISLG Member
 Age, years 1,397 1,281 227
 15–24 2.2 3.3 6.0
 25–34 17.6 16.8 23.6
 35–44 27.4 31.0 32.8
 45–54 25.4 25.6 21.8
 55–64 16.7 14.8 9.6
 65+ 10.7 8.0 6.2
 Attended school 1,397 1,281 227
 Yes 36.6 38.8 28.2
 No 63.4 61.1 71.4
 Highest level of education completed 1,397 1,281 227
 None/Preprimary 37.2 39.9 28.2
 Primary 58.7 55.6 59.7
 Secondary 3.1 2.5 9.2
 TVET or higher 0.9 1.9 2.2
Economic Status
 HHs ability to pay for unexpected expenses 69.2 468 68.1 378 75.7 452
112 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
 HH with moderate to severe hunger 78.2** 1,405 71.6 1,289 65.5 1,192
 HH farm tools and livestock 1,428 1,309 1,216
 Owns any farm tool 98.1 97.3 97.3
 Owns any livestock 58.0 57.0 61.4
 HH land ownership and cultivation in past 12 months
(Anyone in HH) 77.9 1,001 76.9 873 78.6 850
 HH daily consumption per capita (mean RWF) 325 1,428 310.6 1,309 325.6 1,216
 Consumption Categories
 Food and beverages 49.5*** 51.6 54.2
 Housing 8.7**+++ 10.8 10.5
 Clothing and Footwear 1.9 1.9 1.7
 Energy 19.4 19.9* 17.4
 Transport 1.5 1.3 1.4
 Water 2.2 2.1 2.6
 Education 4.2*** 2.2 2.2
 Health 6.4**+ 5.1 4.7
 Personal care 3.0++ 2.5 2.6
 ICT 1.8*+ 1.2 1.2
 Other 1.5 1.3 1.4
 Households with savings 85.6***++ 1,428 77.2*** 1,309 30.8 1,216
 Youth with improved employment (new paid work) in the 
past 6 months 0.3 1,100 0.8 1,162 0.5 719
Child Health and Nutrition Status
 Caregiver’s knowledge of child’s HIV status 30.0***+++ 4210 18.8 3,640 16.9 3,252
 Undernourishment among children 3.1 746 5.9 685* 2.4 650
 IYCF practices for children 6–59 months old 746 685 650
 Among breastfed Children
 Minimum meal frequency 12.9** 19.8 23.4
 Both 4+ food groups and minimum meal 
frequency 3.2*+ 10 7.7
 Among non-breastfed children
 Minimum meal frequency 6.6 4.6 7.2
 With 3 IYCF practices 0.3 0.1* 1.5
 Among all children
 Minimum meal frequency 9.4 10.8 14.2
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 113
 With 3 IYCF practices 1.6*+ 4.1 4.1
 Child too sick to participate in activities 22.2 4,210 21.4 3,640 18.6 3,252
 Birth registration at sector level 85.2 4,210 79.3 3,640 84.8 3,252
Education
 Children ages 5–17 years who attended all days during
the last week of school instruction 64.1++ 3385 55.8 2,903 60.7 2,530
 Children who progressed in school during the last year 90.2 2,311 83.8 1,961 89.0 1,698
 Progress at various levels of schooling among 13- to 17-
year-old youth 1250 1,100 970
 Within primary 55.7 50.6 52.2
 Primary to secondary 13..5+ 6.0 9.3
 Within secondary 7.7 5.5 9.2
 Secondary to TVET/university 0.1 0.0 0.3
 Did not progress 3.6+ 6.3** 3.0
 Missing/not enrolled this or last year 19.4*++ 31.5 26.0
 Secondary school enrollment among 13- to17-year-old 
youth 22.5+ 1,250 12.7 1,100 19.4 970
 Regular school attendance among enrolled 13- to 17-
year-old secondary school youth 17.7+ 1,250 9.6* 1,100 16.1 970
Child Protection
 Caregivers who agreed that harsh physical punishment is 
an appropriate means of discipline 46.3*+ 1444 36.8 1,327 39.5 1,213
Intimate Partner Violence
 Married female caregivers who reported any physical or 
sexual violence 18.7 761 25.6 665 19.9 720
 Married female caregivers who reported any physical 
violence 14.0 761 21.0 665 14.6 720
 Married female caregivers who reported any sexual 
violence 10.7 761 11.8 665 9.7 720
Household Decision Making
 Caregiver report of HH decision making 1,391 1,273 1,150
 Female caregivers participating in all six types of 
important HH decisions 77.9+ 84.3* 76.7
 Female caregivers participating in none of the 
important HH decisions 1.7 0.5 1.9
Among currently married women who received cash 
earnings, person who decides how wife's cash earnings are 
used 584
114 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
 Mainly wife 35.1 29.7 28.3
 Wife and husband jointly 55.2 61.8 61.4
 Mainly husband 9.0 8.0 10.0
 Other 0.8 0.5 0.3
Among currently married women whose husbands received
cash earnings, person who decides how husband's cash 
earnings are used 782 694 727
 Mainly wife 18.3 17.6 14.2
 Wife and husband jointly 59.3 60.6 63.0
 Mainly husband 20.9 19.8 21.7
 Other 1.4 2.0 1.0
Youth Attitudes Towards Gender
Attitudes towards gender among youth (mean composite 
GEM score) 16.0 464 15.1 390 15.6 379
Attitudes towards gender among youth (GEM score divided 
into bands)
Low gender equitable score 27.4 34.8 30.0
Moderate gender equitable score 47.7 49.5 53.7
High gender equitable score 24.9 15.8 16.3
Health Service Use
Children 0-59 months old who received any growth 
monitoring at home or a health center in the last 12 months 71.1 825 60.9 737 66.9 722
Number of growth monitoring events among 0–59 month old 
children at home or at a health center in the last 12 months 586 490 473
 1–2 33.2 32.9 35.1
 3–5 37.8 23.7 34.7
 6–10 13.2 21 14.2
 More than 10 13.5 19.5 14.3
Children 0–59 months old who had fever two weeks before 
the interview 28.7 825 24.3 737 23.7 722
Children 0–59 months old who had a fever and whose 
caregiver sought treatment within two weeks of the interview 72.5 220 60.8 165 76.3 183
Children 0–59 months old who had diarrhea within two weeks 
of the interview 19.3 825 13.4 737 15.6 722
Children 0–59 months old who had diarrhea and whose 
caregiver sought treatment within two weeks of the interview 75.3** 143 42.8** 93 69.9 106
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 115
Youth 10–17 years old who had an HIV test within the past 12 
months and knew their HIV status 19.3 1,100 14.6 1,162 10.6 719
Caregivers who reported ever having an HIV test 89.9**+++ 1444 79.9 1,327 79.7 1,213
Caregivers who reported having an HIV test in the last 12 
months and who knew their status 63.1***+++ 1444 42.4 1327 39.9 1213
 Mean time to reach health services, minutes 1,444 1,327 1,213
 Child health services 60.7 64.5 59.2
 HIV testing services 62.7 64.8 58.6
 Child growth monitoring services 58.5 64.5 56.2
Youth HIV/AIDS Knowledge and Prevention Behaviors
Knowledge of HIV prevention strategies among 10- to 17-
year-old youth 78.5 826 77.4 867 79.9 523
10- to 17-year-olds who had never had sexual intercourse 90.3 1,100 91.1 1,162 92.2 719
Male 90.2 90.6 94.7
Female 90.4 91.6 93.5
10- to17-year-olds who have had sexual intercourse in the last 
12 months, % 3.5* 1,100 4.3** 1,162 1.3 719
Male 2.4 2.5 1.6
Female 4.7 6.4 1.0
Condom use at last sexual encounter among 10- to 17-year￾old youth who reported having had sex (32.5)1 39 (26.7) 1 44 --2 12
Early Childhood Development
 Attendance of early childhood development program 
among children 36-59 months old 38.2***+++ 364 13.6 358 11.6 295
 Caregiver report of household member older than 15 
years engaging in four or more stimulating activities with child 
in the past week 33.7 825 32 737 32.3 722
 Caregivers with correct answers to nutrition test questions 1,444 1,327 1,213
 Knew how long a baby should receive nothing more 
than breastmilk 80.5 75.6 80.3
 Knew that a sick baby or child should be fed the 
same amount of food 15.0 15.4 10.7
 Knew 2 or more key ways to prevent undernutrition 
among infants under 6 months of age 24.6 26.1 29.3
 Knew 2 or more key ways to prevent undernutrition 
among children 6-23 months of age 34.5 38.5 33.7
116 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
 Knew 2 or more key moments when you need to 
wash your hands 80.8 81.6 81.2
 Knew 2 or more important ways a pregnant woman 
should eat 48.0 52.3 45.7
 HH member older than 15 years old engaged in any 
stimulation activity with the child 81.9 825 79.4 737 81.6 722
 HH member older than 15 years old who read books to the 
child 14.5 823 13.8 737 13.5 721
 HH member older than 15 years old who told stories to the 
child 32.8 823 35.6 737 32.2 721
 HH member older than 15 years old sang songs for the 
child 59.0 823 55.8 737 61.0 721
 HH member older than 15 years old took the child outside 63.6 823 60.4 737 61.5 721
 HH member older than 15 years old who played with the 
child 72.2 823 69.5 737 71.7 721
 HH member older than 15 years old who named, counted, 
and drew with the child 21.6 823 25.0 737 21.3 721
 HH with moderate or severe household hinger, hunger 
scale from FANTA 78.1 1,405 71.6 1,289 65.4 1,192
 Child had a birth certificate 10.1 4,210 10.5 3,640 6.2 3,252
 Child had a birth certificate observed by the interviewer 1.1++ 4210 1.4** 3640 0.1 3,252
NOTE: The number of observations varies within groups due to skip patterns and/or missing responses on key indicators
1N = 25–49
2N <25
*versus control, p<0.05
**versus control, p<0.01
***versus control, p<0.001
+ versus HES-only, p<0.05
++versus HES-only, p<0.01
+++versus HES-only, p<0.001
FANTA: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance; GEM: gender equity men; HH: household; ICT: information and communications technology; IYCF: infant and young child 
feeding; TVET: technical and vocational education and training
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 117
APPENDIX E. BASELINE STUDY PROTOCOL
MEASURE Evaluation Phase IV
Impact Evaluation Protocol:
Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable
Populations (ISVP) Project
May 8, 2017
Rwanda
Carolina Population Center
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
400 Meadowmont Village Circle, 3rd Floor
Chapel Hill, NC 27517 USA
TEL: 919-445-9350 FAX: 919-445-9353
http://www.cpc.unc.edu/measure
118 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Contents
Summary of Study...........................................................................................................................................................120
1. Background....................................................................................................................................................121
1.1. Evaluation Purpose..................................................................................................................................121
1.2. Government of Rwanda (GOR) and USAID Response...................................................................121
1.3. Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations (ISVP) Project & Targeting ................................122
1.4. ISVP Project Implementation Plan.......................................................................................................123
2. Study Aims and Objectives.......................................................................................................................................125
2.1 Aims.......................................................................................................................................................................125
2.2 Research Objectives............................................................................................................................................125
3. Study Methods.............................................................................................................................................................125
3.1 Evaluation Study Description............................................................................................................................125
3.2 Evaluation Study Design ....................................................................................................................................125
3.3 Study Sites.............................................................................................................................................................127
3.4 Study Population..................................................................................................................................................127
3.5 ISVP Project Description (Intervention Description)...................................................................................127
3.6 Main Exposures, Confounders and other Design Challenges, and Outcomes.........................................129
4. Selection of Study Population...................................................................................................................................134
4.1 Inclusion Criteria .................................................................................................................................................134
4.3 Exclusion Criteria ................................................................................................................................................134
4.3 Sampling Frame and Design..............................................................................................................................134
4.4 Randomization .....................................................................................................................................................136
5. Study Procedures ........................................................................................................................................................136
5.1 Procedures at Enrollment...................................................................................................................................136
5.2 Follow-up..............................................................................................................................................................137
5.3 Measurement of Exposures and Confounders through Survey Instruments............................................137
5.4 Measurement of Outcomes................................................................................................................................137
5.5 Sample Size ...........................................................................................................................................................137
5.6 Data Management and Security.........................................................................................................................137
5.7 Proposed Analysis and Dissemination.............................................................................................................138
6. Ethical Considerations...............................................................................................................................................139
6.1 Confidentiality ......................................................................................................................................................139
6.2. Informed Consent ..............................................................................................................................................140
6.3 Ethical Approval..................................................................................................................................................140
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 119
7. Logistics........................................................................................................................................................................140
7.1 Distribution of Responsibility............................................................................................................................140
7.2 Staffing plan and bios..........................................................................................................................................141
7.2. Timeline for Baseline; updated May 9, 2017* ................................................................................................146
8. References....................................................................................................................................................................147
9. Appendices...................................................................................................................................................................148
Appendix A - Study Sectors and Assignments (Confidential)............................................................................148
Appendix B - PEPFAR Essential Indicators – Outcome Monitoring for OVC Programs...........................149
120 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Summary of Study
Study Purpose: MEASURE Evaluation, with support from USAID/Rwanda, and in collaboration with the 
National University of Rwanda, College of Medicine and Health Sciences and School of Public Health (NUR￾CMHS/SPH) (baseline) and Incisive Africa (endline), is conducting an outcome and impact evaluation 
through a baseline survey of the Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations (ISVP) Project, which is led 
by Global Communities (GC) along with local non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Rwandan civil 
society organizations (CSOs) and the Ministries of Health (MOH) and Gender and Family Promotion 
(MIGEPROF). The ISVP Project will be implemented in 12 districts in Rwanda with high HIV prevalence 
and in 75 sectors within those districts. The evaluation, which will begin with a baseline survey in April 2017, 
will examine changes in key outcomes in terms of health, education, social services, nutrition, food security 
and economic stability before and after the implementation of the interventions implemented by the ISVP 
Project. 
Study Participants: The baseline survey will be conducted with beneficiary households in intervention areas; and 
with households with children on the Most Vulnerable Children (MVC) list produced by the National 
Commission for Children (NCC). It will include the head of household, primary care givers of children under 
18 years of age, members of integrated savings and lending groups (ISLG), and youth in 1,500 households in 
23 sectors receiving the full package of ISVP Project interventions, in 22 sectors receiving only household 
economic strengthening (HES) interventions, and in 24 control sectors. 
Study Procedures: Households will be chosen for participation in the survey using a two-stage random selection 
procedure based on program beneficiary lists and the MVC lists. There will be a four survey instruments 
administered: household questionnaire, caregiver questionnaire, youth questionnaire and a ISLG 
questionnaire. The chosen households will be visited by data collectors who will interview household 
residents using hand-held computer tablets. The data from the tablets will be transferred directly to the 
Carolina Population Center at UNC via secure FTP for analysis.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 121
1. Background
1.1.Evaluation Purpose
USAID/Rwanda requested MEASURE Evaluation to conduct an impact evaluation of the improved 
Services for Vulnerable Populations (ISVP) project, known locally as the Twiyubake Program. The overall 
goal of the ISVP Project is to strengthen the capacity of target populations and communities to improve their 
health, nutrition and wellbeing, especially orphans and vulnerable children (OVC), people living with 
HIV/AIDS (PLHA), and economically vulnerable families.3
 The project will link PLHA, OVC and other 
vulnerable families to basic health care, as well as to support services that mitigate the impact of HIV disease, 
including services that promote or support economic empowerment, education, and legal protection. A key 
component of the ISVP project will be the implementation of household economic strengthening (HES) 
approaches aimed at providing the necessary support to stabilize and strengthen poor families. The project 
builds upon USAID/Rwanda’s support to the Government of Rwanda (GOR) and civil society partners to 
improve access to health and social services for vulnerable populations and thus enable them to live 
productive lives. The ISVP project began in March 2015 and will be implemented over five years. 
The impact evaluation will assess the extent to which selected HES interventions compared to 
implementation of the full range of ISVP services (i.e. HES and related project services), improve the health, 
nutrition and well-being of the target population. The evaluation will determine the relative contribution of 
HES strengthening efforts to achieve the project’s objectives and goals. The results of the impact evaluation 
will contribute to the evidence base on support to vulnerable populations and their families in the area of 
HES and inform policy formation and subsequent program designs beyond the ISVP project. 
1.2.Government of Rwanda (GOR) and USAID Response
The GOR has enacted social policies and implemented programs aimed at improving the lives and protection 
of vulnerable populations, in particular PLHAs, OVCs and their families. Multiple government institutions 
and non-governmental organizations implement programs aimed at improving health, education, 
employment, local governance and legal protection for these target populations. USAID/Rwanda, in 
collaboration with the GOR has implemented a broad range of programs aimed at tackling the health and 
development challenges facing PLHAs, OVCs, out of school youth, and very poor households. USAID 
projects have focused on improving the access of individuals, households and communities to a network of 
services in health, education, social services, nutrition, food security, and economic stability to enable them to 
live productive lives.
The ISVP project is one project, designed with the support of the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the 
Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion (MIGEPROF), which will contribute to the achievement of 
USAID/Rwanda’s Mission-level results:
• Increased capacities of families and communities to provide better care for vulnerable 
individuals;
 
3 Global Communities. Annual Work Plan: Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Program, COP 14/15. 
Apr 2015
122 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
• Improved household and community care and support practices for vulnerable populations, 
especially children; and
• Increased access to education and social services for vulnerable populations.
A key component of the ISVP project will be HES activities to provide the necessary support to stabilize and 
strengthen poor families and decrease family economic vulnerability. The immediate objective of these 
activities is to improve resilience and purchasing power so that families can afford to consistently feed, 
educate, and care for their children, even in the face of potential shocks like illness, disability, or death of a 
key breadwinner in the household.
Understanding the effect that HES activities have in improving the economic strength of participating 
households and the subsequent impact of this strength on health and education outcomes of target 
populations, will contribute to the evidence base for improved policy and HES program design efforts in the 
future.4
1.3.Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations (ISVP) Project & Targeting
The ISVP Project will be implemented in 12 districts in Rwanda (see Figure 1) and 75 sectors within these 
districts. Within each selected sector, all cells and villages will be targeted over the life of the project. The
districts were chosen due to their high HIV prevalence. The 75 sectors were then selected based on a 
mapping of other USAID-funded projects with orphans and vulnerable children – those with little or no 
USAID investment were selected.
 
4 Gash, Megan and Odell, Kathleen. The Evidence-Based Story of Savings Groups: A Synthesis of Seven Randomized Control Trials. 
The SEEP Network, Sept 2013. Available at: www.seepnetwork.org.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 123
Figure 1. ISVP implementation districts
Within a target community, households are solicited for participation based on their status as a vulnerable 
household. The primary method of identifying eligible households to participate in ISVP will be based on the
Most Vulnerable Children (MVC) lists developed by the National Commission for Children (NCC). Services 
directed towards OVCs and PLHAs act as additional entry point to target vulnerable households in an 
integrated manner. Local service providers will refer clients to ISVP for potential participation in the 
program. Working in partnership with the GOR, local authorities, international and local NGOs, and civil 
society organizations (CSOs), ISVP will link PLHA, OVC and other vulnerable families to a network of 
services in health, education, social services, nutrition, food security, and economic stability.5
1.4.ISVP Project Implementation Plan
To reach the target of 50,000 households, Twiyubake will contract with local Rwandan partner organizations 
(RPOs) who are already operational (RPO level 1) or who are emerging community service providers (RPO 
level 2) to enroll and support three household cohorts from 75 Sectors: 
1. Cohort 1: 12,000 HHs enrolled in year 1, 
2. Cohort 2: an additional 18,000 HHs in year 2 and 
3. Cohort 3: an additional 20,000 HHs in year 3 (Figure 2). 
 
5 With the recent endorsement by the GOR, a national nutrition intervention will be implemented by multiple donors 
across all sectors. ISVP will be responsible for nutrition activities in all full ISVP sectors and 8 HES-only sectors. The 
remaining 45 sectors targeted by ISVP will receive nutrition programming from other donors. 32 additional, un￾programmed (by ISVP) sectors, will receive nutrition programming from other USAID partners.
124 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
For each cohort, the initial 2-3 months will be devoted to identifying and enrolling eligible beneficiaries who 
will be offered services and supported for two or more years (depending on household resiliency index(HRI) 
assessment) and then will “graduate” from the program. 6
 
HH=Households
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 
(Apr. 2016-
Sept. 2016)
(Oct 2016-
Sept. 2017)
(Oct 2017-
Sept. 2018)
(Oct 2018-
Sept. 2019)
Cohort 1: 12,000 
HHs Full ISVP: 7,000 new HHs 
Cumulative 
50,000 
households will 
benefit from 
ISVP
Cohort enrolled 
in January- April 
2016
HES Only: 5,000 new HHs 
Cohort graduates in Jul-Sep 2018
Cohort 2: 18,000 
HHs 
Full ISVP: 18,000 new HHs 
Cohort enrolled 
in Apr-June 2016 Cohort 2 graduates in Oct-Dec 2018
Cohort 3: 20,000 
HHs 
Full ISVP: 20,000 new HHs 
Cohort enrolled 
in June-Aug 2017 Cohort 3 graduates in June-Jul 2019
Total # Sectors 67 75 75 53
*In addition to these sectors, 25 sectors in 3 districts will receive ‘nutrition only’ services in line with the approach to support full 
coverage of Community Based Nutrition Programming (CBNP) across these three districts.
**May 9, 2017: this revised figure is being confirmed with Global Communities
 
6 Households’ capacity to graduate will be based on the HRI assessment. It is estimated that households will have the 
capacity to graduate after two years of receiving program services. However, some household members, depending on 
their specific needs, may continue to receive program services even after their household has graduated at the two year 
point.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 125
Figure 2. Twiyubake implementation cycle
2. Study Aims and Objectives
2.1 Aims
This impact evaluation seeks to measure the impact of the ISVP Project interventions on the health, 
education, and economic well-being of vulnerable children and their families. This study will examine
whether HES activities alone, or a more comprehensive package of additional social support and referrals, 
lead to better economic resilience and improvements in health and education among children from the most 
vulnerable households. 
2.2 Research Objectives
The impact evaluation’s objectives are to answer the following research questions:
1. Does the full package of Twiyubake services (henceforth Full ISVP) strengthen household 
economic status and provide the additional support to motivate these economically 
strengthened families to realize health and education benefits?
2. Can HES-Only (henceforth HES-Only) activities provide the economic stability for households to 
access health/education services and improve individual health and educational well-being?
3. Which approach is more cost-effective?
a. Full-ISVP
b. HES-only 
3. Study Methods
3.1 Evaluation Study Description
Using a randomized control trial design, administrative sectors will be assigned to study arms receiving 
different intervention packages. Baseline survey data from a panel of households and individuals from each 
study arm will be collected in 2017 and resurveyed at endline in late 2018.
3.2 Evaluation Study Design
We propose a prospective, randomized controlled trial, using a difference-in-differences (DID) estimation 
strategy with fixed effects modeling to evaluate the impact on economic, health and education outcomes, of:
a. Full-ISVP program vs. HES-only program
b. Full-ISVP vs. Control
c. HES-only program vs. Control 
Two rounds of population-based survey data collection are proposed. Baseline data collection is planned for 
April-May 2017, to record household economic status during the most vulnerable period for many families. 
126 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Endline data collection will be repeated during late 2018 to facilitate comparisons in economic vulnerability 
from baseline to endline.
Impact Evaluation of Rwanda 
Twiyubake Project
HH=Households
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 
(Apr. 2016-
Sept. 2016)
(Oct 2016-
Sept. 2017)
(Oct 2017-
Sept. 2018)
(Oct 2018-
Sept. 2019)
Cohort 1: 12,000 
HHs Full ISVP: 7,000 new HHs 
Cumulative 50,000 
households will 
benefit from ISVP
Cohort enrolled 
in January- April 
2016
HES Only: 5,000 new HHs 
Cohort graduates in Jul-Sep 2018
Cohort 2: 18,000 
HHs Full ISVP: 18,000 new HHs 
Cohort enrolled 
in Apr-June 2016 Cohort 2 graduates in Oct-Dec 2018
Cohort 3: 20,000 
HHs Full ISVP: 20,000 new HHs 
Cohort enrolled 
in June-Aug 2017 Cohort 3 graduates in June-Jul 2019
Figure 3. Evaluation Design of Rwanda Twiyubake Project
The cross-sectional survey at baseline in 2017 will sample households from enrolled beneficiary lists in 
intervention sectors. The control group will be randomly sampled from households eligible for the program 
but living in sectors assigned to the control arm. Households surveyed at baseline will be tracked and 
surveyed at endline in 2018.
Since we will randomize the sectors to different study arms, in theory we could conduct a post-intervention 
survey only and estimate program impact by measuring the difference in means between the intervention and 
control groups. However, there are advantages to a DID model worth pursuing. First, including a baseline 
survey will allow us to test the validity of the random assignment, that is, to examine whether the 
randomization process produced comparable or balanced groups across all study arms. Second, using a fixed 
effects specification in a DID model will allow us to improve the precision of our impact estimates by 
reducing the variability of the error term. Lastly, if despite our efforts the random assignment is inadequate, 
then the use of a DID model will allow us to control for pre-intervention observed differences across groups 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 127
and for fixed unobserved characteristics at the community level to improve the estimation of program 
impact.
At endline, we will also conduct key informant interviews with District level officials and ISVP program staff 
to try to assess whether there have been any significant changes in the study areas over time that may have 
affected implementation of the intervention and/or outcomes relevant to the evaluation.
3.3 Study Sites
Please see Appendix A for the list of sectors and study arm assignments.
3.4 Study Population
The study population will include:
• Economically vulnerable households as identified through a list of the ”Most Vulnerable Children 
(MVC) 7
 ,” from the MVC database, which is developed by the National Commission for Children;
this list is then validated in community meetings; and
• OVC and PLHAs identified by health service providers as coming from vulnerable households that 
would benefit from participation.8
Households on MVC list will be eligible and encouraged to participate by ISVP. In a given area, if the 
number of children on the MVC list is greater than the target number of beneficiaries for that area, ISVP will 
prioritize children based on guidelines from the NCC, including a vulnerability assessment procedure carried 
out with local leaders.
Within each selected household, the following members will be selected for the study: 1) all eligible primary 
caretakers of children; 2) the primary ISLG member (in the program arms); 2) one randomly selected 10-17 
year old.
3.5 ISVP Project Description (Intervention Description)
ISVP or Twiyubake is a 5-year, USAID-funded project awarded to Global Communities in partnership with 
AVSI, Partners in Health, and Plan, as well as local Rwandan partner organizations. The overarching project 
goal is to improve the protection of vulnerable populations against adverse circumstances, thus contributing 
to reducing the risk and impact of HIV/AIDS and other health conditions on the most vulnerable 
populations. Vulnerable populations are defined as OVCs, PLHAs, including members of the household 
 
7 The list is developed by NCC by targeting households exclusively in Ubudehe 1 and 2 and then collecting additional 
information to better understand their specific vulnerabilities (based on questions to identify whether or not they are 
enrolled in school, disabilities, chronic illness, indication of malnutrition, orphan status, child headed household, 
psychosocial distress, involvement in child labor etc). 
8 Note that the evaluation study team only has a list of program beneficiaries as of July 2016 and this list will not note 
how the beneficiaries were made eligible for the program; that is, the study team will not know whether beneficiaries 
were referred to the program from health service providers or whether they were eligible based on having children on 
the MVC list.
128 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
caring for these two groups, very poor households, especially female and widow-headed households, and out 
of school youth. 
Twiyubake aims to assist 50,000 households (including 250,000 children, youth and adults) by reducing 
economic vulnerability and empowering families to make investments to meet the unique needs of young 
children and adolescents. The project, led by Global Communities, will focus on knowledge-based skills 
development that enhances households’ capacity (knowledge, opportunities, and resources) to mitigate the 
impact of HIV/AIDS. In so doing, the Twiyubake project will address four intermediate results (IR):
IR 1: Increased capacity of families and communities to provide healthy, nurturing, and engaging 
environments for vulnerable children <5;
IR 2: Family economic vulnerability decreased;
IR 3: Increased knowledge, attitudes, skills, aspirations and confidence of adolescents transitioning to 
adulthood; and
IR 4: Increased capacity of communities to provide essential preventative and protective services to 
vulnerable families and children.
ISVP Project Strategy
The foundation of the Twiyubake strategy is four core household economic strengthening (HES) 
interventions: 1) integrated savings and lending groups (ISLGs); 2) financial education; 3) micro and small 
enterprises and cooperatives; and 4) activities to improve intra-household communication and joint economic 
decision-making. Locally-formed ISLGs provide the opportunity for members to grow household assets and 
access emergency funds. Financial education for the ISLG members teaches money management skills such 
as savings, debt management, budgeting, bank services, and financial negotiation. The development of 
micro and small enterprises and cooperatives will be promoted to ISLG members who will receive 
instructional materials on basic market analysis and resources during their first year as a savings group. In 
subsequent years, groups will be able to access additional services such as training and business advisory 
services through a fee-for-service model. Twiyubake will subsidize the costs for individuals and groups to 
access these services, with subsidies decreasing over time as the cooperatives or enterprises grow and their 
capacity to pay for these services increases. Lastly, participatory and adult learning techniques will be used to 
teach members a curriculum to improve relationships within families (e.g., couples communication, parent￾child interactions, and intimate partner violence).
Established ISLGs create a platform on which to layer other interventions to reinforce positive parenting 
practices and strengthen family decision-making in the best interests of children. Sometimes known as 
“savings plus,” this approach takes advantage of the regular meetings, shared aspirations, and group dynamics 
of a locally-formed savings and lending group to explore other relevant topics and issues including health, 
nutrition and agriculture, life skills, parenting education, and referrals.9 Building on the four core HES 
 
9Gash, Megan, Odell, Kathleen. The Evidence-Based Story of Savings Groups: A Synthesis of Seven Randomized Control Trials. 
The SEEP Network, Sept 2013. Available at: www.seepnetwork.org.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 129
interventions and specifically layering on the ISLG platform, Twiyubake is implementing and/or promoting a 
number of additional activities. Using a case management approach, Twiyubake will work with families to 
identify economic, health, and education needs, then promote or refer to services as appropriate. Some of 
the specific individual and household interventions include:
• Consumption Support (or household grants) –ISVP will provide time-limited consumption support 
to the poorest households who require immediate financial assistance to meet basic needs, including 
incremental costs related to accessing basic education and health insurance. Households receiving 
support will simultaneously take the next step on the economic strengthening pathway by enrolling in 
an ISLG. 
• Farmer field schools (FFS) - ISVP will encourage households to form Farmer Field Schools led by 
trained volunteers. FFSs provide the opportunity for participants to test and adopt improved 
agricultural production techniques and new fortified crops in order to increase incomes and improve 
household nutrition.
• Health Promotion and Referrals – promotion of HIV testing and counseling for all ages; referrals 
and assistance to receive treatment among PLHA; nutrition screening, counseling and referrals; 
WASH education; family planning and male involvement advocacy.
• Early Childhood Development – parenting education on early childhood development; promotion of 
ECD centers and playgroups.
• Sexual and reproductive health and gender-based violence education and referrals for adolescents.
• Youth-centered ISLGs and work readiness activities for out-of-school adolescents.
• Education support packages – households with school-age children will receive a one-time 
disbursement of materials to support schoolwork, such as a lamp and writing materials.
Additional work by Twiyubake through local partners will include working alongside government agencies to 
improve health service delivery and referrals, strengthen child protection, and support locally-formed gender￾based violence committees to combat violence in the home and the community.
3.6 Main Exposures, Confounders and other Design Challenges, and Outcomes
Theory of Change
As noted above, the foundation of the Twiyubake strategy is the HES interventions, in particular the ISLGs 
which create a platform on which to layer other interventions (Figure 4). The core HES activities help 
households budget, save, and target their consumption to benefit the health and educational wellbeing of the 
household members. The additional wrap-around services reach a few different audiences using a case 
management approach to match needs with services. The household interventions are designed to improve 
general household welfare including hygiene practices and use of health services. Early childhood 
interventions work with parents on parenting skills and encouragement to monitor and strengthen early 
 
130 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
development. Adolescent interventions focus on health education, work readiness and youth-centered 
ISLGs. The underlying theory of change posits that economic strength enables households to act on the 
advice and referrals received to better the health and education of their children.
Figure 4. Causal pathways for Twiyubake project
Confounding and Other Design Challenges
Selection Bias and Confounding: The risk of selection bias and confounding due to unobserved heterogeneity 
across the study arms will be minimized by the random assignment of sectors to study arms. Random 
assignment of sectors prior to program implementation provides the best opportunity to achieve balanced 
arms at the community level, removing the selection bias by sector. There remains the potential for selective 
participation on behalf of the eligible population targeted. Some families, approximately 7-8% as seen in 
Higa Ubeho,10 may decline participation when offered the Full ISVP program or the HES-Only package of 
interventions. However, there is no reason to believe that the rate of refusal or the reasons for refusal will 
vary between the two intervention arms (Full ISVP and HES-Only) because program promotion will center 
on ISLG participation and enrollment will require beneficiaries to join an ISLG. Only after beneficiary 
enrollment will the Full ISVP wrap-around services be offered to beneficiary. Regarding the control 
population, we will not be able to identify the possible 7-8% of the eligible population who would have 
declined participation had they been offered the program because we are not offering them the opportunity 
 
10 Personal communication with Global Communities, June 2015.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 131
to enroll. If at baseline the study arms are unbalanced, then we will control for observable factors in the final 
analysis.
Spillover Effects: Randomization at the sector-level should help to reduce potential spillover effects across 
study arms given the geographic and administrative separation of arms. Many of the system-level 
interventions promoted in the Full ISVP program may implicate the entire sector, for example improvements 
to the health system and referral systems. Each sector has a health center which will benefit from these 
referral system improvements sector-wide and beneficiaries will most often be seeking services within their 
own sectors. There are a few systems that are targeted at the district-level for improvements including 
hospitals and one-stop centers for gender-based violence prevention and mitigation. These district-level 
improvements may be available to survey respondents from any study arm.
Contamination: The effect of other interventions should be small as random allocation minimizes the risk 
of differential coverage of other interventions in intervention and control areas. For example, Global 
Communities under the former project Higa Ubeho, developed a gender equity education curriculum which 
has been adopted for national scale-up by a leading national women’s group. 
 Randomization theoretically should distribute the influence of those activities uniformly across the 
entire study population, assuming the program is homogeneously rolled out. We will monitor other 
interventions through collection of programmatic data from ISVP partners and sector stakeholders. Data at 
the household level will also be collected on participation in ISVP activities as well as in other economic 
strengthening, health and nutrition, agriculture, or education programs/activities in their communities. 
Risk of Attrition: The DID with fixed effects strategy requires pre- and post-intervention measures from 
the same beneficiary families. Once enrolled in the program, the expectation is that beneficiaries will receive 
program services for approximately 18 months, representing the typical life cycle of the HES curriculum. 
After completing a cycle, the household will graduate from the program but will ideally remain active in their 
ISLG. A 5-8% dropout rate from HES activities is anticipated given the experience of Higa Ubeho11
. 
Oversampling at baseline will account for this expected dropout. 
Heterogeneity of Impact: Differences in baseline household characteristics such as wealth, family size, and the 
gender and education of the household head, as well as differences between communities, such as HIV 
prevalence, chronic malnutrition rates, or education access, may lead to heterogeneous impacts of the ISVP 
and HES interventions. We will examine the level of heterogeneity of the study sample on the dimensions 
mentioned above and will study whether the relative impact of the Full ISVP and HES-Only interventions 
vary by those characteristics. In particular, we will examine whether the impact varies by household 
consumption, gender, and age of ISLG participant. For individual level outcomes, such as diet diversity, use 
of health services, school attendance, etc., we will examine if program impact varies by the gender of the child 
and/or the gender of the ISLG participant. 
It is important to note that while we know which sectors will be offered the interventions, we have very 
limited information on the characteristics of the study population. This limits our ability to sample based on 
 
11 Ibid.
132 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
different characteristics of the population. Efforts to measure heterogeneous impacts would require inflating 
the sample to enable appropriate statistical testing, which would have significant implications for the budget 
of the evaluation. Instead, we will collect data on individual and household characteristics which will allow 
for the inclusion of interaction terms in our models to look at the differential effects across households, 
sectors, and type of intervention, but will not power the sample size on these effects.
Gender: The caregiver survey and ISLG participant survey will include questions to help us understand 
the decision-making process regarding household expenditures and food consumption within a family vis-à￾vis gender. This will enable us to determine if the relative impact of the Full-ISVP arm (versus the other 
arms) varies by the sex of the child, sex of ISLG participant, and the sex of the household head. The 
caregiver survey, for one randomly selected female caregiver participant per household, will look at 
experience of intimate partner violence (IPV); some economic empowerment programs with women have 
found increased IPV to be a negative unanticipated outcome. The caregiver survey will also include questions 
on household decision-making dynamics within the household.
Risks to the impact evaluation: As with any study, there are risks that may threaten the impact evaluation and the 
credibility of the results. Non-compliance with the program or evaluation design is one potential threat. It is 
important, therefore, that the assignment of the sectors to study arms is done randomly, that the treatment 
status of the study arms is maintained with no change during the duration of the evaluation, and that the 
interventions are implemented according to plan in all arms. The advantage of maintaining these conditions is 
that they provide a more robust evaluation design and high credibility to the evaluation results. 
Failure of the randomization is a potential threat. We propose the DID model to serve as the best means to 
control for selection bias resulting from failed randomization. Balance testing will be done at baseline to 
determine whether the random assignment was successful and to identify variables essential to control for in 
the final impact analysis. We will be sure to include other USAID programs in the area in the balance testing.
Outcome Measures -- Incl. OVC Outcome Monitoring
Evaluation Indicators
The project objective of poverty alleviation with informed economic decision-making leading to improved 
household health and education outcomes can be defined and measured in a number of ways. To answer the 
specific research questions posed by this impact evaluation, a number of primary key outcomes will be 
measured along with secondary outcomes that will provide additional insight into effects of the program 
along the causal pathway. The primary project outcomes cover three substantive areas: economic 
strengthening or resilience, health, and education. 
We propose one key impact evaluation indicator with a corresponding cost-effectiveness measure (the 
additional cost of the ISVP approach for each unit improvement in the outcome) for each of the three areas 
as follows. Study sample size calculations are based on indicators 1 and 2.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 133
1. Economic Strengthening: Percent of households with moderate or severe household hunger – hunger 
scale created by FANTA and used in the USAID/Feed the Future project.12
2. Education: Percent of 13-17 year olds with regular school attendance – binary indicator for no missed 
days during last week of instruction.
3. Health: Percent of children 0-17 whose caregiver knows the child’s HIV status.
Additional secondary outcomes to be collected and analyzed (disaggregated by sex, as applicable) include:
• Household consumption patterns 
o Absolute and proportion of expenditures used for food, education, health services;
o Percent of households with increased savings or productive asset ownership ;
• Economic outcomes – individual
o Percent of youth reporting new or improved paid employment within the past six months;
• Household decision-making and gender-related attitudes and behaviors
o Percent of female caregivers who report joint, sole or partner-only household decision￾making power for various decisions (e.g. seeking healthcare for children, major household 
purchases, etc.);
o Percent of female caregivers reporting experience of intimate partner violence within the 
previous 12 months;
• Use of health and social services
o Percent of children 0-59 months receiving routine growth monitoring and nutrition services;
o Among children 0-59 months with fever in the last two weeks, percent for whom advice or 
treatment was sought at a health facility/provider;
o Among children 0-59 months with diarrhea in the last two weeks, percent for whom advice 
or treatment was sought at a health facility/provider;
o Percent of children 0-17 for whom caregivers report birth was registered at the sector level;
o Percent of 10-17 year olds reporting having had an HIV test;
o Percent of caregivers reporting having had an HIV test;
o Percent of caregivers reporting use of a modern family planning method;
• Nutrition knowledge and behavior
o Percent of 6-59 months olds who meet minimum dietary diversity – defined as consuming 
from four or more food groups in the past 24 hours;
o Mean score among caregivers on a test of nutrition;
• Youth HIV Knowledge and reproductive health
o Percentage of 10-17 year olds who correctly identify ways of preventing HIV; 
o Percentage of 10-17 year olds reporting using a condom with their partner the last time they 
had sex;
• Early childhood development
o Percent of children 36-59 months old who are attending an early childhood education 
program;
o Percent of children 0-59 months old with whom an adult has engaged in four or more 
activities to promote learning and school readiness in the last 3 days;
 
12 Ballard, Terri; Coates, Jennifer; Swindale, Anne; and Deitchler, Megan. Household Hunger Scale: Indicator Definition and 
Measurement Guide. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance II Project, FHI 360. Aug 2011.
134 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
• Education
o Percent of school aged children who progressed in school from previous year;
o Percent of school aged children with regular school attendance – binary indicator for no 
missed days during last week of instruction;
o Percent of youth graduating from primary school and returning to secondary school.
OVC Outcome Monitoring
In response to the new PEPFAR outcome monitoring requirements for OVC programs,13 collection of the 
nine Essential Indicators for outcome monitoring will be embedded in the impact evaluation data collection 
tools. See Appendix B for a complete list of these nine indicators. Due to MER reporting deadlines, once 
complete data is available, the evaluation team will process these indicators first and report them to the 
Mission before the baseline report is drafted.
4. Selection of Study Population
4.1 Inclusion Criteria
The population under study is households exclusively in Ubedehe 1 and 2 categories, identified as MVC, by 
the NCC, and OVC that would benefit from participation in ISVP Project interventions. Within each 
selected household we will interview: 1) all eligible caretakers; 2) the primary ISLG member (in the program 
arms), and; 3) one randomly selected 10-17 year old. It is possible the eligible caretakers, ISLG members and 
or the youth may be the same person. Households in the target areas will be chosen through a random 
selection design. 
4.3 Exclusion Criteria
There are no exclusion criteria for the program area – any household on the program beneficiary list as 
of July 2016 can be sampled for the evaluation. For the control area, any households not identified as 
having a child from the MVC list are excluded.
4.3 Sampling Frame and Design
In order to capture accurately program impact we must select samples of sufficient size to achieve the key 
objectives of the study. Sample size estimation for this survey was motivated by the need to detect certain 
potential differences in population values for key indicators between program and control areas at end line. 
The key indicators were:
• Indicator 1: Percent of 13-17 year olds with regular school attendance;
• Indicator 2: Percent of households with moderate or severe hunger.
 
13 Collecting PEPFAR MER Essential Survey Indicators: a supplement to the orphans and vulnerable children 
survey tools. MEASURE Evaluation, 2014. 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 135
In Table 1 we indicate the sampling goals for each of these key indicators. For instance, the goal is to be able 
to detect a difference in the population value for indicator 1 of 15.1 percentage points (from 13 percent in the 
control population to 28.1 percent in the full ISVP populations) at follow up. 
Table 1. Sampling Goals
Study Population
Indicator Full ISVP HES Only Control
Indicator 1 28.1 20 13
Indicator 2 24.9 33.6 43
Assuming power equal to 0.8 and alpha equal to 0.05, to achieve the sampling goals requires a sample of 
around 1,380 households in each domain (Full ISVP, HES Only and control) at end line. Given the 
longitudinal design of the data, having 1,380 households per domain at end line requires some 
accommodation for attrition from baseline to end line. Assuming attrition of around 8 percent, we would 
therefore have to select 1500 households in each domain at baseline. We thus must select an overall sample 
of 4500 households at baseline.
Following Fleiss, Levin and Paik (2003)14 we employed the following basic sample size estimator for 
comparison of proportions 𝑝1 and 𝑝2 across two populations (populations 1 and 2):
𝑛1 =
𝑛′
4
∙ [1 + {1 +
2 ∙ (𝑟 + 1)
𝑛′ ∙ 𝑟 ∙ |𝑝1 − 𝑝2
|
}
1/2
]
2
𝑛2 = 𝑟 ∙ 𝑛1
𝑛
′ =
[𝑧1−𝛼
2
⁄
∙ {(𝑟 + 1) ∙ 𝑝̅∙ 𝑞̅}
1
2
⁄ + 𝑧1−𝛽 ∙ (𝑟 ∙ 𝑝1 ∙ 𝑞1 + 𝑝2 ∙ 𝑞2
)
1
2
⁄
]
2
𝑟 ∙ (𝑝1 − 𝑝2
)
2
where
𝑝̅=
(𝑝1 + 𝑟 ∙ 𝑝2
)
(𝑟 + 1)
𝑞̅ = 1 − 𝑝̅
𝑞1 = 1 − 𝑝1
𝑞2 = 1 − 𝑝2
and
𝑍1−𝛼
2
⁄
and 𝑍1−𝛽
 
14 Fleiss, J. L., B. Levin, and M. C. Paik. (2003). Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 3rd ed. New York:
Wiley.
136 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
are critical values from the standard normal distribution. This is essentially the conventional sample size 
estimator for determining sample sizes 𝑛1 and 𝑛2 (constrained15 so that 𝑛2 = 𝑟 ∙ 𝑛1) sufficient to detect with 
power 1 − 𝛽 and 𝛼 significance a difference between samples of 𝑝1 − 𝑝2 for some proportion-based 
indicator. The first of these equations reflects a “continuity correction”.
Other assumptions about key parameters driving this sample size estimate include an anticipated design effect 
(or 2 for indicator 1 and 3 for indicator 2), the number of 13-17 year olds we expect to find per household 
(0.7) and the baseline household non-response rate (0.965050733). Making such key parameter assumptions is 
somewhat challenging in a society such as Rwanda, where fertility levels are in flux. We regard these sampling 
parameter assumptions as conservative ones based on projections off of observed values for them through 
the 2010 Rwanda DHS (e.g. the response rate was actually based on the lowest response rate experienced 
across the three DHS surveys from 2005 to 2010).
Below the sector the administrative units are cells and then villages. We will sample directly from the full list 
of villages across the sectors assigned to each domain (i.e. villages would serve as primary sampling units 
within each domain). The village list will have a size measure (the number of households per village) that 
inform sampling. Selection will then be based on stratification of villages into large and small villages 
according to the number of households in them. In full ISVP and HES-only arms, we will then select all 
beneficiary households in each village based on the ISVP/HES beneficiary lists as of July 2016 for those 
villages. In the control arm, we will sample from the MVC list; we will similarly stratify villages into large and 
small villages according to the number of households and select villages based on this; we will verify/update 
the MVC list for each selected control village with local village leaders. We will then interview all original 
MVC list households located; and take a random sample from the additional households identified by village 
leaders as being Ubedehe level 1 or 2. Within each selected household in all three arms we will interview: 1) 
all eligible caretakers; 2) the primary ISLG members in the program arms; and, 2) a randomly selected 10-17 
year old.
4.4 Randomization
Our study area was parsed into different domains. This was accomplished via randomization. Specifically, a 
draw from the uniform distribution was made for each of the 99 sectors in the study area. They were then 
assigned to domains/study arms per their rank according to their draw from the uniform distribution. For 
each domain, the final number of assigned sectors was: 
1. Full ISVP program (23 sectors) 
2. HES-Only activities (22 sectors) 
3. Controls (24 sectors)
The remaining 30 sectors are available to ISVP for additional programming in future years. See Appendix A 
for the list of sectors and study arm assignments.
5. Study Procedures
5.1 Procedures at Enrollment
 
15 In other words, 𝑟 defines the ratio of the two sample sizes: 𝑟 = 𝑛2⁄𝑛1
.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 137
Data will be collected through in-person interviews with participant responses recorded on hand-held 
computer tablets. Data collectors will be trained on how to administer the surveys as well as on human 
subjects’ protection. 
5.2 Follow-up
Households surveyed at baseline will be surveyed again at endline in 2018. The same survey modules 
will be administered at endline.
5.3 Measurement of Exposures and Confounders through Survey Instruments
Four key questionnaires will be used for the household and individual data collection. The survey and 
consent forms were created in English and translated into Kinyarwanda. The questionnaires and what they 
information they collect is as follows:
Household Questionnaire: To be administered to the primary caregiver, with assistance from others in 
household as needed, at time of interview. It is designed to capture demographic and socio-economic 
characteristics of the household, including the household roster, household consumption, savings and 
loans, housing characteristics, information on household member participation in social or development 
programs. 
Caregiver Questionnaire: To be administered to the primary caregivers of children/youth under 18 years of 
age. Tool is designed to record demographic characteristics of the caregiver, health status of caregiver, 
household decision-making and own use of services. Additional questions about the caregiver’s children 
include health and well-being of children <10 years including education, recent illness, disabilities, early 
childhood development, psychosocial well-being, and food consumption. For female caregivers, the tool 
also covers experience of intimate partner violence.
Youth Questionnaire: To be administered to children/youth ages 10-17. Tool collects individual 
information on education, employment, chores, disabilities, psychosocial well-being, sexual and 
reproductive knowledge, and use of services. 
ISLG Questionnaire: To be administered to the main household member participating in a local savings and 
lending group. Tool covers group participation.
5.4 Measurement of Outcomes
Please see section 3.6 for the outcomes to be measured. 
5.5 Sample Size
To achieve the sampling goals stated in section 4.3 requires a sample of around 1,380 households in each 
domain (Full ISVP, HES Only and control) at end line. Given the longitudinal design of the data, having 
1,380 households per domain at end line requires some accommodation for attrition from baseline to end 
line. Assuming attrition of around 8 percent, we would therefore have to select 1500 households in each 
domain at baseline, for a total sample size of 4500 households at baseline.
5.6 Data Management and Security
Data collection for the quantitative component will be done through the use of Windows-based tablets 
equipped with CSPro software. There will be 9 supervisors who will supervise teams of 6 enumerators16
. 
 
138 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Enumerators will enter interview data directly into the tablets. Supervisors will check each interview for 
completeness and consistency. 
The tablets will be password protected, and the hard drives will be encrypted. At the end of each data 
collection day, supervisors will back up the data on each enumerator’s tablet by making a copy on the tablet 
itself, and they will also regularly transfer the backups from the enumerator tablet directly to UNC and 
National University of Rwanda/School of Public Health via secure FTP and in keeping with UNC and local 
IRB data security requirements. 
The de-identified survey data will be stored on a secure server at UNC. Identifiers will be in a separate file 
linkable only to the survey data through a study-assigned household ID #; this file with identifiers will be 
housed on a secure server at the National University of Rwanda. To ensure data protection and 
confidentiality across the study, all partners will sign a data use agreement and will have committed to using 
reasonable data protection measures, as outlined in the agreement, to protect the data. When data collection 
is complete, tablets will be returned to MEASURE Evaluation, checked for completeness of data delivery, 
and cleared of all survey data.
5.7 Proposed Analysis and Dissemination
Analysis of the data will be completed using quantitative methods. Quantitative methods will be used to 
compare data on key outcome indicators in the full ISVP Project intervention areas to that in the HES-Only 
intervention areas and to Control areas. The data collected will act as the baseline in order to measure the rate 
of change in the key outcome indicators at the end of the ISVP Project. More details on baseline analysis are
as follows:
1. Before data collection begins, a final questionnaire is developed. A computer assisted personal 
interviews (CAPI) data inputting program for tablets is then developed. The purpose of this program 
is to serve as a platform for inputting the answer to questions provided by survey respondents, and 
to create a data frame that will rapidly generate data sets well aligned around the likely general 
analysis requirements for the survey.
2. Before fieldwork can begin, data collection staff are recruited and trained. This is an involved process 
the purpose of which is to insure the thorough collection of accurate information from respondents, 
but for present purposes (the analysis plan) is to insure that, where necessary, interviewers 
understand the analytical purpose of the instruments the will collect (i.e. the “big picture” from the 
analysis standpoint). This will help to insure there are not interpretational issues at the point of 
interview in terms of the indicators to be collected.
3. During the data collection process, a tabulation plan will be developed for the baseline report. As 
tables designs are finalized, programming will begin to generate the tables once data is ready for 
analysis. This programming will be conducted in STATA. The purpose of the programs will to be to 
create a framework of programs that can rapidly and automatically generate the tables and for which 
changes (e.g. changes to the standardized categories for a background characteristic such as 
education) can be rapidly and easily implemented across tables. A program based approach insures 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 139
much higher table accuracy (compared with cell by cell entry) and allows for much more rapid 
adjustment to changes (by way of regeneration of tables reflecting those new changes). 
4. Before data collection is complete, data quality reports will come in from the field on a regular basis. 
The timeliness (i.e. near instantaneous) flow of quality information for the data being collected is a 
major benefit of tablet based CAPI. Since the CAPI data inputting program will be a system control 
type program, it will not allow for failure to enter information for any instrument subject to answer 
(i.e. the valid skip process). Moreover, it should catch inconsistent answers across comparable 
instruments. The focus of data quality analysis will be insuring plausible patterns for answers, 
examination of evidence of heaping (as in to avoid valid skips), differential patterns across teams and 
interviewers, etc. The field reports will also form the basis for key sampling information for weight 
calculation, which the data processing team will develop in partnership with the sampler.
5. Once data collection is complete final auditing and editing is conducted. 
6. The data is then handed over to the sampler. The sampler will calculate probability weights and 
standardized wealth/expenditures/socioeconomic status measures (i.e. wealth measures to be used 
for tabulation analysis toward formal reports, to insure consistency of measures of 
wealth/expenditures/socioeconomic status across the tables of the formal tabulation plan for 
baseline reporting.
7. Once the sampling work is done an analysis sample is ready. This will involve running tabulation 
programs, inspection of tables, and possible further programming and re-running as interesting 
patterns and results become apparent.
8. Once the initial phase of tabulation is done, draft tables will be reviewed by key stakeholders. Their 
feedback and recommendations will inform further reprogramming and regeneration of tables.
9. Once a final set of tables is complete, writing of a baseline report can commence around those tables.
Dissemination of the baseline results are planned for August/September 2017. A dissemination webinar will 
be held and attended by USAID/Rwanda, ISVP partners, and other invited stakeholders. Presentations by 
MEASURE Evaluation and National University of Rwanda will include an overview of the IE protocol and 
baseline results, followed by discussion of how the results can be used to inform project planning. An in￾person dissemination meeting is anticipated following completion of the full study in 2018.
6. Ethical Considerations
6.1 Confidentiality
The study will need to obtain informed consent from all participants. Special population considerations will
be necessary for adolescents – parental/caretaker consent will be required in addition to the consent of the 
adolescent him/herself – and for female caregivers (for administration of the questions on intimate partner 
violence (IPV)). For the latter, the team will follow the World Health Organization (2001) ethical and safety 
recommendations for research on IPV. Precautions include:
• Names of respondents are not disclosed and are excluded from all data sets.
• Instruction is built into the survey module requiring the interviewer to continue the interview only if 
privacy is confirmed. If privacy cannot be obtained, the interviewer must skip the IPV module and 
explain in tablet what happened.
• At the start of the IPV module, the respondent is read a statement to inform her that the following 
set of questions are personal and will explore different facets of a woman’s life. The statement also 
140 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
assures that her answers are confidential and will not be shared beyond the study team. This 
statement is in addition to the informed consent already obtained at the start of the interview.
• Special training is provided for interviewers and supervisors to sensitize them to issues surrounding 
IPV and to the specific concerns regarding collection of data on violence. 
• Only one eligible female caregiver in each selected household is to be administered the IPV module 
questions. In households with more than one woman eligible for the caregiver survey, the woman 
administered the module will be randomly selected by the tablet. Interviewing only one woman per 
household for IPV questions minimizes possible security breaches due to other household members 
knowing that information on IPV was shared.
• Information on local organizations that provide services/referrals related to IPV is given to any 
respondent who asks the interviewer for help.
Also, no information on HIV status will be available to the study team – for example, the beneficiary list 
from ISVP will not have information about HIV status and the surveys will not ask participants to report 
their HIV status.
6.2. Informed Consent
The study will need to obtain informed consent from all participants.
6.3 Ethical Approval
Human subject review of the complete study protocol and data collection instruments from the Rwanda 
National Ethics Committee (RNEC) and UNC-Chapel Hill Institutional Review Board will be obtained prior 
to data collection. In addition, the team will obtain a survey visa from the National Institute of Statistics 
Rwanda (NISR).
7. Logistics 
7.1 Distribution of Responsibility
The evaluation, including data collection and analysis, will be conducted by MEASURE Evaluation and the 
the National University of Rwanda, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Public Health (NUR￾CMHS/SPH). The Evaluation Team includes national and international development specialists from 
MEASURE Evaluation and NUR/CMHS/SPH who have substantial knowledge and experience in (1) 
evaluation design and implementation, (2) HIV program implementation, including PLHA and OVC 
programs, and M&E, (3) quantitative methodologies; (4) data analysis and use; and (5) detailed knowledge of 
Rwanda’s public health sector, PLHAs, OVC, HIV/AIDS, FP and SRH, ECD program implementation, 
relevant governmental and non-governmental institutions. Key personnel for this study include the overall 
study principal investigator and activity lead, the local principal investigator (from UR-CMHS/SPH), an OVC 
M&E advisor, a senior evaluation advisor and a sampling specialist. 
USAID/Rwanda staff will provide feedback on the evaluation design to ensure that the information they 
need for future planning and implementation of PLHA, OVC and other vulnerable populations programs 
will be produced. Implementing Partners such as Global Communities and the RPOs will be consulted to 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 141
inform the evaluation design in terms of how the full package of ISVP services and HES services are scaled￾up.
National counterparts such as the MOH and MIGEPROF will be consulted to gain a greater understanding 
of the context of PLHAs, OVC and programs aimed at other vulnerable populations in Rwanda. 
7.2 Staffing plan and bios
Name Role/Title Technical/Managerial Focus
National University of Rwanda-based Advisors
Sabine F. Musange Lecturer; Health Policy, economics and 
Management Department 
Local Principal Investigator and 
Activity Lead
Vedaste 
Ndahindwa 
Lecturer; Epidemiology and Biostatistics 
Department
Co-Investigator, Sampling strategy, 
data management and quality
Ina R. Kalisa Lecturer; Health Policy, economics and 
Management Department
Co-investigator, Data consolidation 
and Reporting
Albert Ndagijjimana Assistant Lecturer; Epidemiology and 
Biostatistics Department 
Co-Investigator, Field coordinator
MEASURE Evaluation-based Advisors
Jessica Fehringer Gender Portfolio Manager Principal Investigator and Activity 
Lead
Lisa Parker OVC M&E Technical Advisor Co-Principal Investigator, OVC
Specialist
Gustavo Angeles Senior Technical Advisor for Evaluation Advisor for Evaluation Design, Cash 
Transfer
Gabriela Escudero Research Associate Management
Peter Lance Statistician Sampling design and data analysis
Aimee Benson Programmer Tablet programming and data 
management
Lisa Marie Albert Graduate Research Assistance (GRA) Assist in all areas of the IE
Stacie Gobin Health Economist Lead for cost-effectiveness 
component
TBD Data Analyst Data analysis and report writing
National University of Rwanda-based Advisors
142 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Sabine F. Musange, MD, MSc is a Lecturer at the University of Rwanda-School of Public Health. She is the 
principal investigator and the project focal point on behalf of the Rwandan evaluation team. Her 
responsibilities for this project include overall coordination of in-country evaluation activities. Her research 
interest areas include operational research, program evaluations in maternal and child health, health policy and 
financing. For the past 9 years, she has been teaching at the School of Public Health and working closely with 
the Ministry of Health and different development partners in developing, implementing and evaluating health 
interventions/ programs in Rwanda. Dr Musange obtained her Medical Degree from the School of Medicine 
at the University of Rwanda, and her Masters in Sciences in International Health Policy and Management at 
the Heller School for Social Policy and Management from Brandeis University. She is currently doing her PhD 
in Global Health-Implementation Sciences at the University of Washington.
Vedaste Ndahindwa, MD, MSc is a Lecturer at the University of Rwanda, College of Medicine and Health 
Sciences, School of Public Health. With 9 years’ experience as a public health specialist, he has strong interest 
in Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Nutrition, Clinical Research, Evaluations, Demography and GIS. He has been 
the Director of Medical Research Unit and the Coordinator of the National Health Research Committee in the 
Medical Research Center Division (RBC) for one year and a half. He has worked on several research projects 
and he has a good experience in study design and protocol development. Recently, he was part of the SPH and 
WB team that evaluated the impact of financial incentives to CHWs on health outcomes, where the 
cooperatives were part of the assessment. Dr Vedaste holds a degree in Medicine from the University of 
Rwanda and a Master’s degree in Biostatistics from Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium. Dr Vedaste has 
expertise in data management and data analysis using many statistical packages and software. In this evaluation, 
Dr Vedaste will be involved in study design, methods, design and piloting of survey tools and data management, 
quality and analysis.
Kalisa R. Ina, MD, Msc, is one of the University of Rwanda’s research team members for the Impact 
Evaluation of the ISVP project in Rwanda. Her main responsibilities for this work include data consolidation 
and reporting. She is a medical doctor with a Master in Health Policy and Management from the Universite 
Libre de Bruxelles School of Public Health. She has gained teaching and research experience working since 
2006 with the School of Public Health-College of Medicine and Health Sciences at the University of Rwanda
as a faculty member and researcher. Over the course of that time, the scope of her work has transitioned from 
junior to middle-level academic staff and from serving as co-investigator on small research project or 
consultancies to directing large research project focusing mainly on health financing and policy (sector wide 
approach, community-based health insurance and performance based financing). Her most recent large 
research project as a Co-PI is the Impact Evaluation of the Community Performance Based Financing in 
Rwanda. 
Ndagijimana Albert, MPH, MSc is an Assistant Lecturer at the University of Rwanda, College of Medicine 
and Health Sciences, School of Public Health. He will principally be in charge of coordinating fieldwork 
activities. At the University of Rwanda, College of Medicine and Health Sciences School of Public Health, he 
is involved in different activities: teaching (strategic problem solving, leadership, governance and management 
of health services, public health emergencies and disasters, introduction to one health, etc), research and 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 143
community activities since 2013. He participates in capacity building workshop for other institutions especially 
in facilitating workshops on research and publications. 
Albert’s areas of interest include maternal and child health, HIV prevention, disaster management and one 
health approach research. He is also involved in different activities for the past two years including community 
services, where he is involved in strengthening resilient capacities of people from floods and landslides prone 
area as well as DRC refugees about the effects of these disasters. He is also expert in conducting program 
evaluation (operations research) such Imbuto Foundation Adolescent sexual and reproductive health program, 
Rwanda family planning and reproductive health commodities and services assessment. He is good at designing 
and implementing impact evaluations. He has a strong experience in coordinating field works as he is familiar 
to the whole country relief and health services infrastructures. He has a good record in publications for the 
only two years in academia, with four scientific papers.
Albert is expert in monitoring and evaluation of health programs with a long experience in a district hospital 
for six years. He speaks English, French and Kinyarwanda.
MEASURE Evaluation-based Advisors
Jessica A. Fehringer, PhD, MHS, is the MEASURE Evaluation activity lead and principal investigator for 
the Rwanda evaluation. Her responsibilities for this work include overall development and implementation of 
the evaluation design, collaboration with the local research partner, and coordination with USAID/Rwanda 
and the ISVP activity. Dr. Fehringer is responsible for oversight of gender-related research activities as well 
as for leading several evaluation and research projects in S. Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. She has a PhD from 
Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health in Population, Family, and Reproductive Health and a 
Masters in Health Sciences in International Health, with a focus on Social and Behavioral Interventions, from 
the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health. She has worked in international public health, with a 
focus on the empowerment of marginalized groups, for over 15 years. She has designed and carried out 
qualitative and quantitative research and evaluation in South and Southeast Asia, South America, and sub￾Saharan Africa on a number empowerment and health topics, including the influence of relationship power 
dynamics on HIV prevention and treatment and gender-based violence. She most recently designed and 
implemented the baseline for a quasi-experimental mixed methods evaluation examining the MNCH/FP and 
health service impacts of integrating gender and social inclusion into capacity building with local health 
facility committees in Nepal; and acted as gender advisor and qualitative lead for the design and baseline 
survey implementation of a mixed methods quasi-experimental evaluation examining the gender dimensions 
of impacts of ground nut value chain interventions in Zambia.
Lisa Parker, PhD is the OVC Specialist for the Rwanda evaluation. In this role her responsibilities include 
development of the evaluation design with particular expertise contributing to choice of key indicators, 
choice of survey populations, and survey tool design. She has more than 15 years of experience working in 
the fields of public health, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and international development with a focus on 
HIV/AIDS, sexual and reproductive health, household economic strengthening, and vulnerable children. 
Dr. Parker’s doctoral dissertation aimed to help develop and evaluate a pilot Positive Prevention program for 
Youth Living with HIV/AIDS ages 15-24 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Dr. Parker has 
experience in both quantitative and qualitative research as well as social and behavioral intervention 
development, adaptation, implementation, and evaluation primarily in sub-Saharan Africa. Currently a 
Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Advisor at MEASURE Evaluation/Futures Group she oversees a large 
144 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
portfolio of OVC M&E capacity-building programs in Nigeria and Cameroon. In this role she is responsible 
for providing technical support to stakeholders to develop M&E systems, guidelines for host country OVC 
programs, and aids in the collection and use of OVC data and information. She contributed to the 
development of the MEASURE Evaluation Child, Caregiver, and Household Well-being Survey Tools and 
the Collecting PEPFAR Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (MER) Essential Survey Indicators: A 
Supplement to the OVC Survey Tool Kit, and led the pilot of the survey tools in Nigeria. She is also 
responsible for designing operations research and evaluation studies, including acting as Principal Investigator 
for the HIVCore qualitative retrospective evaluation of a community savings group intervention for OVC in 
Haiti. Dr. Parker provides technical support to the child protection and M&E teams within the Health Policy 
Project in Haiti. She has extensive experience living, working, and conducting research in Sub-Saharan Africa 
including in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, The DRC, Malawi, Niger, Nigeria, and South Africa. 
Lisa is fluent in both English and French.
Gustavo Angeles, PhD is the Senior Evaluation Advisor for the Rwanda evaluation. His responsibilities for 
this work include development of the evaluation design with particular expertise contributing to RCT rigor, 
sampling strategies, and cost-effectiveness considerations. He is a health economist and faculty member of 
UNC’s Gillings School of Public Health, and a Fellow at the Carolina Population Center. He has over 20 
years of experience on evaluation of health and social development programs in Latin America, Africa and 
Asia and is currently Senior Evaluation Advisor of MEASURE Evaluation where he leads the impact 
evaluation of USAID/Guatemala Western Highland Integrated Program, and co-leads impact evaluations of 
two health programs in Bangladesh. He also participates as instructor on a number of training and capacity 
building activities on impact evaluation conducted in Mexico, South Africa, India, and Nepal. With UNICEF 
and 3ie funding, he is currently co-investigator for the impact evaluations of Malawi’s Social Cash Transfer 
Program and Zimbabwe’s Harmonized Social Cash Transfer Program. Also in Malawi, Dr. Angeles co-leads 
the USAID-funded impact evaluation of the Feed the Future’s Integrated Nutrition and Value Chain (INVC) 
program. He has ample expertise in social cash transfer programs from his current work in Malawi and 
Zimbabwe, and the mid-term evaluation of Mexico’s PROGRESA/Oportunidades program he led as Executive 
Director of the Center for Evaluation Research and Survey in Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health 
(INSP) in 2010-2011. Dr. Angeles worked on impact evaluations of Mexico’s Secretary of Social 
Development cash transfers to the elderly and childcare support to poor working mothers programs, both 
with 3ie funding. He served as Deputy Director of MEASURE Evaluation (2000-2010), providing strategic 
and technical advice to USAID on evaluation and capacity building. In that role, he was technical lead of 
health program evaluations in Bangladesh, Tanzania, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Mexico, Ecuador, and 
Peru. Additional research includes measurement and estimation methods for impact evaluations of health 
programs.
Gabriela Escudero, MPH is a Research Associate providing technical support for the Rwanda evaluation. 
Her primary responsibilities for this work include protocol development including literature reviews and 
program document reviews to assure that design decisions are informed by recent research and activities 
proposed; budget development; logistics planning and any subcontracting solicitation processes. Gabriela 
Escudero has worked in the field of public health for 20 years in more than a dozen countries, most recently 
as a research associate under the MEASURE Evaluation Phase III project providing technical assistance in 
monitoring and evaluation to the Bangladesh Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s Health, Population and 
Nutrition Sector-wide Development Program. Ms. Escudero has supported personnel from Ministries of 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 145
Health, USAID, and NGOs in multiple countries in Central America, Africa, and South East Asia to develop 
monitoring and evaluation plans, implement evaluation activities related to reproductive health and 
HIV/AIDS, and coordinated health survey planning, data collection and analysis. Ms. Escudero is fluent in 
English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish. 
Peter M. Lance, PhD is an economist. He will be responsible for calculating final sample sizes required to 
meet power requirements for the evaluation design, drawing of the sample, calculation of sampling weights, 
and baseline survey data analysis. Dr. Lance earned his PhD in Economics from the University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill with a focus on health, econometrics and economic development. Since earning his 
PhD, Dr. Lance’s work has focused on program impact evaluation, modelling of health behaviors and 
outcomes and survey sampling. He has served as a sampling expert and analyst at all phases of many surveys. 
His work has involved China, India, Thailand, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Senegal, Kenya and Indonesia.
Stacie Gobin, MPH. Stacie Gobin is a health economist with particular expertise in cost-effectiveness 
analysis and behavioral economic modeling within public health. She will lead the CEA portion of the 
evaluation. She has experience in conducting various applied economic evaluations including cost￾effectiveness analyses of interventions in low- and middle-income countries. Stacie previously served as the 
lead health economist for the Pan-African Malaria Vector Research Consortium and the London School of 
Tropical Medicine's Department of Disease Control in Tanzania. She has additional experience working on 
the USAID TRAction and ASSIST projects and in management consulting.
Aimee Benson, will lead tablet programming and all data management processes for the tablets during the 
design and baseline phases. Aimee M. Benson is a data processing specialist with over 15 years' experience in 
developing both PAPI and CAPI data capture systems and training and supporting field personnel in their 
use. She has led capacity building workshops in data management and analysis. She has worked in US and 
international contexts, including Malawi, China, Bangladesh, the Caribbean, Zambia, India, Nigeria, Kenya 
and Senegal. Ms. Benson holds a Master's degree in Experimental Psychology from Duke University.
Lisa Marie Albert, MS (NCSU), MPH (UNC), is a PhD Candidate in Epidemiology at University of North 
Carolina and a MEASURE Evaluation Fellow. Her research interests are in HIV prevention, orphans and 
vulnerable children and reproductive health. Prior to starting at UNC, she worked in South Africa as 
Monitoring and Evaluation Manager for HPTN 068, a clinical trial studying the effects of cash transfer for 
the prevention of HIV in young women. With over 14 years of SAS programming experience, Lisa has 
provided analysis for various global health research projects funded by NIH, USAID, UNICEF and CDC. 
Lisa dovetails her research interests with documentary photography and innovative research methods such as 
Photovoice, enabling vulnerable individuals and communities to voice their stories through imagery and 
video. She hopes that her research will contribute to the prevention of HIV and that her documentary work 
will provide an advocacy platform for human rights issues.
Data Analyst (TBD). S/he will clean data, produce tables, assist with report writing.
MEASURE Evaluation is a MEASURE project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of Leader with 
Associates Cooperative Agreement GHA-A-00-08-00003-00. Views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the U.S. 
government.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 146
7.2. Timeline for Baseline; updated May 9, 2017*
Tasks/Timeline 2017
Ja Fe Ma Ap Ma Ju Jl Au Se Oc No De
Survey 1 Implementation
Finalize government approvals
Finalize instruments, consent, and
data collection plan
Edit programs and re-test tablets
Pre-test survey instruments (UR/SPH)
HH Listing
Refresher training for data collectors
Trip: Train and Data Collection
Collect data 
Process tablet data, clean, add 
weights
Data analysis
Draft baseline report 
Review by stakeholders and revise
Dissemination webinar
Monitoring: routine review of project
expenditures
Quarterly update discussions with ISVP Program
*Pending confirmation from data analysts
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 147
8. References
Ballard, Terri; Coates, Jennifer; Swindale, Anne; and Deitchler, Megan. Household Hunger Scale: Indicator 
Definition and Measurement Guide. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical 
Assistance II Project, FHI 360. August 2011.
Chaffin, Josh and Ellis, Cali Mortenson. Outcomes for children from household economic strengthening interventions: a research 
synthesis. Save the Children, June 2015.
Gash, Megan and Odell, Kathleen. The Evidence-Based Story of Savings Groups: A Synthesis of Seven Randomized Control 
Trials. The SEEP Network, September 2013. Available at: www.seepnetwork.org.
Global Communities. Annual Work Plan: Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Program, COP 14/15. April 2015.
National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR), Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MINECOFIN). 
Rwanda Fourth Population and Housing Census-2012. August 2012.
National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda. The Evolution of Poverty in Rwanda from 2000 to 2001: Results from 
the household surveys (EICV). February 2012.
National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR), Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MINECOFIN). 
Rwanda Fourth Population and Housing Census-2012. Thematic Report: Education characteristics of the population. January 2014.
National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR) [Rwanda], Ministry of Health (MOH) [Rwanda], and
ICF International. Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey 2010. Calverton, Maryland, USA: NISR, MOH, and ICF 
International. 2012.
Republic of Rwanda. Community-led Ubudehe categorization kicks off. Mar 2015. See: 
http://www.gov.rw/news_detail/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1054&cHash=a315a8b0054e76f9c699f05ce24d3eb8
World Health Organization (WHO) . Putting Women First: Ethical and Safety Recommendations for Research on 
Domestic Violence Against Women. WHO: Geneva, 2001. Found online at: 
http://www.who.int/gender/violence/womenfirtseng.pdf
148 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
9. Appendices 
Appendix A - Study Sectors and Assignments (Confidential)
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 149
Appendix B - PEPFAR Essential Indicators – Outcome Monitoring for OVC Programs
Source: Collecting PEPFAR MER Essential Survey Indicators: a supplement to the orphans and vulnerable children 
survey tools. MEASURE Evaluation, 2014. 
Available at: http://www.cpc.unc.edu/measure/publications/ms-14-90
150 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
APPENDIX F. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 151
152 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 153
154 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 155
156 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 157
158 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 159
APPENDIX G. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS
Table of Contents
MODULE A. Household Identification Cover Sheet...............................................................................................160
MODULE D. Dwelling Characteristics......................................................................................................................167
MODULE E. Household Transfers and Credit Sent / Received...........................................................................173
SECTION E1. TRANSFERS GIVEN TO INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSEHOLD OR TO 
ORGANIZATIONS 173
SECTION E2. TRANSFERS RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUALS 174
SECTION E3. TRANSFERS RECEIVED NGO & GOVERNMENT 175
SECTION E4. SAVINGS 180
MODULE F. Household Consumption Expenditure..............................................................................................181
SECTION F1. FOOD CONSUMPTION OVER PAST MONTH (FOUR WEEKS) 181
SECTION F2. NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES OVER PAST ONE MONTH (FOUR WEEKS) 194
SECTION F3. NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES OVER PAST TWELVE MONTHS 196
SECTION F5. HOUSEHOLD FARMING AND FARM ASSETS 208
SECTION F6. CULTIVATION 209
SECTION F7. AGRICULTURAL ASSETS 211
MODULE G. SHOCKS ...............................................................................................................................................213
SECTION G1. NEGATIVE EVENTS213
SECTION G2. POSITIVE EVENTS 215
MODULE H: ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES, HIV PREVENTION, CARE AND SUPPORT........216
160 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
MODULE A. Household Identification Cover Sheet 
Note to Programmer: Preprogram the IRB Study Number into tablets for all surveys so interviewers do not need to 
document this.
IRB Study Number |_________|
IDENTIFICATION DATA
A001 PROVINCE
A002 DISTRICT
A003 SECTOR
A004 CELL
A005 VILLAGE
A006
HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
MODULE C. Household Roster and Demographics
SECTION C1. ROSTER
Table 3. Adults and Children Combined
CODES FOR C109: RELATIONSHIP TO HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD FOR ADULTS IN HOUSEHOLD
1 = HEAD
2 = WIFE OR 
HUSBAND
3 = SON OR 
DAUGHTER
4 = SON-IN-LAW or DAUGHTER-IN￾LAW
5 = GRANDCHILD
6 = PARENT
7 = PARENT-IN￾LAW
8 = SIBLING
9 = OTHER 
RELATIVE
10 = 
ADOPTED/FOSTER/STEPCHI
LD
11 = NOT RELATED
88 = DON’T KNOW
CODES FOR C111: RELATIONSHIP OF MAIN CAREGIVER TO THE CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
01=Biological Mother
02=Biological Father 
03=Step-Mother/ Foster Mother
04=Step-Father/Foster Father
05=Sister
06=Brother
07=Aunt
08=Uncle
09=Grandmother
10=Grandfather
11= Non-Family 
Member Female
12= Non-Family 
Member Male 
13=Self 
66=Other
88=Don’t Know
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 161
CODES FOR C114. CLASS LEVEL CODES
0=Pre-Primary
1=Primary 1
2=Primary 2
3=Primary 3
4= Primary 4
5=Primary 5
6=Primary 6
7=Primary 7
8=Primary 8
17=TVET1
18=TVET2
19=TVET3
11= Secondary 
1
12= Secondary 
2
13= Secondary 
3
14= Secondary 
4
15= Secondary 5
16= Secondary 6
21=University 1
22=University 2
23=University 3
24=University 4
25=Univ. 5 and above
77=None
88=Don’t Know
COMPLETE TABLES 1 AND 2 (QUESTIONS C101-C106) IN THE TRACKING DOCUMENT
162 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Now I would like to ask you some further questions about the members of your household. 
C106.1 
Line 
Number
(pre￾populat
ed from 
101-
end of 
adult 
list, and 
201 –
end of 
children 
list)
C106.2 List 
initials of 
household 
members 
From table 
1 and 2 in 
ID survey. 
C107. Is 
(INITIAL)
male or 
female?
1=Male, 
2=Femal
e
6=Other 
(specify)
9=Refuse
C108. How old is 
(INITIAL)?
RECORD AGE IN YEARS. 
IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR 
OLD, PUT 0 FOR YEARS 
AND RECORD NUMBER 
OF MONTHS 
DOUBLE CHECK 
CORRECT PLACEMENT 
OF HOUSEHOLD 
MEMBER BASED ON 
AGE. IF MEMBER 
PLACED IN WRONG 
TABLE, PLEASE 
CORRECT.
C109. What is the 
relationship of 
(INITAL) to the 
head of the 
household?
See Relationship
codes above
ALL ADULTS 
AGED 18+ SKIP 
TO C114.
NOTE: IF HH 
HEAD IS AGED 
10-17, ANSWER 
C110-C113.
C110: Who usually 
cares for/looks 
after (INITIAL)? 
INSERT LINE 
NUMBER OF MAIN 
CAREGIVER
IF (INITAL) TAKES 
CARE OF 
HER/HIMSELF,REC
ORD THEIR LINE 
NUMBER (from 
C104.1) HERE FOR
C110 AND ‘13’ 
FOR C111. THEN 
ASK C112.
C111. What is the 
relationship to 
the child of the 
main person who 
cares for/looks 
after (INITIAL)?
See Relationship 
Codes above.
If parent, probe 
for biological 
/non-biological.
C112. If 
C111=01, 
record 1=Yes 
for C112 and 
skip to C113
Is (INITIAL)'s 
natural 
mother alive?
1=Yes, 
2=No,
8=DK
C113. If 
C111=02, 
record 1=Yes 
for C113 and 
skip to C114
Is (INITIAL)'s 
natural 
father alive?
1=Yes,
2=No, 
8=DK
C114. Filter: 
Ask of those 
>3 years of 
age. What is 
the highest 
class level that 
[INITIAL] has 
completed in 
school? 
See Class level 
codes below.
C114.1 
Filter: Ask 
of those 
aged 10 or 
older:. 
What is 
your 
current 
marital 
status? 
See marital 
status 
codes 
below.
101. __ __ years __ 
__months
102. __ __ years __ 
__months
103. __ __ years __ 
__months
104. __ __ years __ 
__months
105. __ __ years __ 
__months
106. __ __ years __ 
__months
107. __ __ years __ 
__months
108. __ __ years __ 
__months
109. __ __ years __ 
__months
110. __ __ years __ 
__months
111. __ __ years __ 
__months
112. __ __ years __ 
__months
113. __ __ years __ 
__months
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 163
C106.1 
Line 
Number
(pre￾populat
ed from 
101-
end of 
adult 
list, and 
201 –
end of 
children 
list)
C106.2 List 
initials of 
household 
members 
From table 
1 and 2 in 
ID survey. 
C107. Is 
(INITIAL)
male or 
female?
1=Male, 
2=Femal
e
6=Other 
(specify)
9=Refuse
C108. How old is 
(INITIAL)?
RECORD AGE IN YEARS. 
IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR 
OLD, PUT 0 FOR YEARS 
AND RECORD NUMBER 
OF MONTHS 
DOUBLE CHECK 
CORRECT PLACEMENT 
OF HOUSEHOLD 
MEMBER BASED ON 
AGE. IF MEMBER 
PLACED IN WRONG 
TABLE, PLEASE 
CORRECT.
C109. What is the 
relationship of 
(INITAL) to the 
head of the 
household?
See Relationship
codes above
ALL ADULTS 
AGED 18+ SKIP 
TO C114.
NOTE: IF HH 
HEAD IS AGED 
10-17, ANSWER 
C110-C113.
C110: Who usually 
cares for/looks 
after (INITIAL)? 
INSERT LINE 
NUMBER OF MAIN 
CAREGIVER
IF (INITAL) TAKES 
CARE OF 
HER/HIMSELF,REC
ORD THEIR LINE 
NUMBER (from 
C104.1) HERE FOR
C110 AND ‘13’ 
FOR C111. THEN 
ASK C112.
C111. What is the 
relationship to 
the child of the 
main person who 
cares for/looks 
after (INITIAL)?
See Relationship 
Codes above.
If parent, probe 
for biological 
/non-biological.
C112. If 
C111=01, 
record 1=Yes 
for C112 and 
skip to C113
Is (INITIAL)'s 
natural 
mother alive?
1=Yes, 
2=No,
8=DK
C113. If 
C111=02, 
record 1=Yes 
for C113 and 
skip to C114
Is (INITIAL)'s 
natural 
father alive?
1=Yes,
2=No, 
8=DK
C114. Filter: 
Ask of those 
>3 years of 
age. What is 
the highest 
class level that 
[INITIAL] has 
completed in 
school? 
See Class level 
codes below.
C114.1 
Filter: Ask 
of those 
aged 10 or 
older:. 
What is 
your 
current 
marital 
status? 
See marital 
status 
codes 
below.
114. __ __ years __ 
__months
115. __ __ years __ 
__months
116. __ __ years __ 
__months
117. __ __ years __ 
__months
118. __ __ years __ 
__months
119. __ __ years __ 
__months
120. __ __ years __ 
__months
201. __ __ years __ 
__months
202. __ __ years __ 
__months
203. __ __ years __ 
__months
204. __ __ years __ 
__months
205. __ __ years __ 
__months
206. __ __ years __ 
__months
207. __ __ years __ 
__months
164 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
C106.1 
Line 
Number
(pre￾populat
ed from 
101-
end of 
adult 
list, and 
201 –
end of 
children 
list)
C106.2 List 
initials of 
household 
members 
From table 
1 and 2 in 
ID survey. 
C107. Is 
(INITIAL)
male or 
female?
1=Male, 
2=Femal
e
6=Other 
(specify)
9=Refuse
C108. How old is 
(INITIAL)?
RECORD AGE IN YEARS. 
IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR 
OLD, PUT 0 FOR YEARS 
AND RECORD NUMBER 
OF MONTHS 
DOUBLE CHECK 
CORRECT PLACEMENT 
OF HOUSEHOLD 
MEMBER BASED ON 
AGE. IF MEMBER 
PLACED IN WRONG 
TABLE, PLEASE 
CORRECT.
C109. What is the 
relationship of 
(INITAL) to the 
head of the 
household?
See Relationship
codes above
ALL ADULTS 
AGED 18+ SKIP 
TO C114.
NOTE: IF HH 
HEAD IS AGED 
10-17, ANSWER 
C110-C113.
C110: Who usually 
cares for/looks 
after (INITIAL)? 
INSERT LINE 
NUMBER OF MAIN 
CAREGIVER
IF (INITAL) TAKES 
CARE OF 
HER/HIMSELF,REC
ORD THEIR LINE 
NUMBER (from 
C104.1) HERE FOR
C110 AND ‘13’ 
FOR C111. THEN 
ASK C112.
C111. What is the 
relationship to 
the child of the 
main person who 
cares for/looks 
after (INITIAL)?
See Relationship 
Codes above.
If parent, probe 
for biological 
/non-biological.
C112. If 
C111=01, 
record 1=Yes 
for C112 and 
skip to C113
Is (INITIAL)'s 
natural 
mother alive?
1=Yes, 
2=No,
8=DK
C113. If 
C111=02, 
record 1=Yes 
for C113 and 
skip to C114
Is (INITIAL)'s 
natural 
father alive?
1=Yes,
2=No, 
8=DK
C114. Filter: 
Ask of those 
>3 years of 
age. What is 
the highest 
class level that 
[INITIAL] has 
completed in 
school? 
See Class level 
codes below.
C114.1 
Filter: Ask 
of those 
aged 10 or 
older:. 
What is 
your 
current 
marital 
status? 
See marital 
status 
codes 
below.
208. __ __ years __ 
__months
209. __ __ years __ 
__months
210. __ __ years __ 
__months
211. __ __ years __ 
__months
212. __ __ years __ 
__months
213. __ __ years __ 
__months
214. __ __ years __ 
__months
215. __ __ years __ 
__months
216. __ __ years __ 
__months
217. __ __ years __ 
__months
218. __ __ years __ 
__months
219. __ __ years __ 
__months
220. __ __ years __ 
__months
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 165
CODES FOR C114.1: MARITAL STATUS
1=Married 2=Cohabitating (but not married) 3=Never been married 4=Divorced or Separated 5=Widowed 9=Refused
* An Integrated Savings and Lending Group (ISLG) is a community-based and member-owned institutions composed a group of people who save together and take 
small loans from those savings. The activities of the group run in cycles of one year, after which the accumulated savings and the loan profits are distributed back to 
members. ISLG integrate financial education services for members.
Table 4. For C115-C120 Filter: Ask C115 – C120 of those >59 months (>=5 years) of age
CODES FOR C115: OCCUPATION 
1=Agricultural labourer
2 = Own farm labour
3=Livestock herding
4=Fishing 
5=Petty trade 
6=Trader
7=Mining
8=Brewing
9=Handicraft
10=Domestic help
11=Carpenter
12=Construction 
(bricklayer)13=Traditional healer
14=Mechanic
15=Mil worker
16=Seamstress/tailor/clothes 
repair
17=Hairdresser/barber
18=Charcoal maker 
19=Charcoal/firewood seller
51=Unemployed
52=Housewife
53=Student
54=Retired
55=Unable to work due to 
illness/disability
66=Other
166 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
C115.1 
Line Number
(pre￾populated 
from 101- end 
of adult list, 
and 201 – end 
of children 
list)
C115.a
Has [INITIALS] 
been away 
from home 
over the 
course of the 
last 12 
months? For 
example, for 
studies, 
seasonal work, 
prison/detenti
on or other 
reason?
1=Yes
2=No -> C115.2
C115.b
How long has 
[INITIALS] 
been absent 
over the last 
12 months?
C115.c
What was the 
primary reason for 
this absence?
1=Studies
2=Seasonal work
3=Working away now
4=For health care
5=Attend ceremony
6=Visiting 
friends/family
7=Training
8=Detention/compuls
ary service
9=Unexplained 
absence
66=Other (specify)
C115.2
What is 
[INITIAL
S] main 
occupat
ion? 
See 
Occupat
ion 
Codes 
above
C116. Is [INITIALS] 
paid for this 
occupation or for 
other work they 
may do?
1=Yes
2=No
8=DK
If No =>C118
C117. Is 
[INITIALS] paid in 
cash or kind for 
this occupation?
1=Cash only
2=Cash and in 
kind
3=In kind only
C118. Is 
[INITIALS] in the 
Twiyubake 
integrated 
savings and 
lending group 
program?*
1=Yes=>C120
2=No
8=DK
C119. Is 
[INITIALS] a 
participant in any 
integrated
savings and 
lending group 
(ISLG)?*
1=Yes
2=No
8=DK
IF YES, PROBE TO 
SEE IF THE ISLG 
GROUP IS 
TWIYUBAKE
C120. For how 
many children that 
live in this 
household is 
[INITIALS] the 
primary caregiver? 
IF NO CHILDREN, 
RECORD 00.
IF [NAME] IS 
<18 AND CARES 
FOR SELF, 
COUNT AS 1 
CHILD. IF 
[NAME] CARES 
FOR 
ADDITIONAL 
CHILDREN, 
ADD THESE 
ADDITIONAL 
CHILDREN TO 
1. RECORD 
TOTAL.
101 [__] [__]
102 [__] [__]
Etc. [__] [__]
ASK C120A FROM THE TRACKING DOCUMENT TO DETERMINE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE ISLG MEMBER
COMPLETE KISH GRID FROM THE TRACKING DOCUMENT TO DETERMINE IPV MODULE
C121
In the last 12 months, has this household welcomed any new members, either 
new children that have been born, or children or adults that have moved in?
Yes
No
1
2=>C123
C122
Among those new household members, 
how many were: 
Read each age group
Under 5 years |___ ___| 18-59 years |___ ___|
5-17 years |___ ___| 60 years or older |___ ___|
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 167
C123
In the last 12 months, has this household experienced the death of any 
household members – that is, people who were living in this household when 
they died?
Yes 
No
1
2=>C201
C124
Among those who died, how many 
were: 
Read each age group
Under 5 years |___ ___| 18-59 years |___ ___|
5-17 years |___ ___| 60 years or older |___ ___|
COMPLETE THE FOLLOW-UP TRACKING SECTION C2 (QUESTIONS C201-C207) OF THE TRACKING DOUCMENT 
168 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
MODULE D. Dwelling Characteristics
Enumerator: Ask primary household decision-maker (likely the person who answered Module C). Enter responses to Questions D06 – D08, D11 based on your own observations.>
Now I am going to ask you some questions about your dwelling. 
D101. What is your current occupancy 
status? 
Owner occupier (no loan or mortgage)
Owner with loan or mortgage 
Tenancy – renting
Dwelling provided by employer
1
 2 =>D103
3 =>D103
4 
Dwelling provided free of charge
Appropriation/Squatting
Temporary camp/settlement
Other, Specify_____
5
6 
7 =>D105
66
D102. How much would you have to pay in rent for this dwelling if you 
didn’t own it or have it provided?
SPECIFY TIME PERIOD RENT WOULD COVER 
RWF
Day 
Week 
Month
Year 
1 =>D104 
2 =>D104 
3 =>D104 
4 =>D104 
D103. How much do you pay in mortgage/loan or in rent?
SPECIFY TIME PERIOD RENT WOULD COVER 
RWF
Day 
Week 
Month
Year 
1 
2 
3 
4 
D104. How many years ago was this dwelling built? How old is it? IF DO NOT KNOW RECORD 888 
D105. <OBSERVE – DO NOT ASK > Exterior (outer) 
Walls: The outer wall of the main dwelling of the 
household are predominantly made of what material? 
Natural Walls:
 No walls 
 Cane / Palm / Trunks
 Dirt 
Rudimentary Walls:
 Bamboo with mud 
 Stone with mud 
11
12
13
21
22
Finished Walls:
 Cement 
 Stone with Lime/Cement 
Bricks 
 Cement Blocks 
 Covered adobe 
 Wood Planks / Shingles 
31
32
33
34
35
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 169
 Uncovered adobe
 Plywood 
 Cardboard 
 Reused Wood 
Mud bricks with cement (stucco)
23
24
25
26
27
Other(specify____) 
36
66
D106. <OBSERVE- DO NOT ASK > 
Roof: The roof of the main dwelling is predominantly 
made of what material? 
Natural Roofing:
 No roof
 Thatch / Palm leaf / Leaf 
 Sod
Rudimentary Roofing:
Rustic Mat / Plastic 
 Palm / Bamboo
 Wood Planks
 Cardboard
11
12
13
21
22
23
24 
Finished Roofing:
 Metal sheets /iron
 Wood
 Calamine / Cement Fiber
 Ceramic Tiles
 Cement
 Roofing Shingles
Other(specify_______)
31
32
33 
34
35
36
66
D107. <OBSERVE – DO NOT ASK > 
Floor: The floor of the main dwelling is predominantly 
made of what material? 
Natural Floor:
Earth / Sand
 Dung
Rudimentary Floor:
Wood Planks
 Palm / Bamboo
11
12
21
22 
Finished Floor:
Parquet or polished Wood
 Vinyl or Asphalt Strips
 Ceramic Tiles
 Cement
 Carpet
Other(specify_____)
31
32
33
34
35
66
D108. How many rooms in this household are used for sleeping? 
(DO NOT COUNT BATHROOMS, TOILETS, STOREROOMS, OR GARAGE)
D109. Does your household have electricity? Yes 1 No 2 >>D111
170 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
D110. What was the total cost of electricity for your 
household? Please specify over which time period. 
RWF
Day
Week
Month
Year
1
2
3
4
D111. Is the cooking usually done in the dwelling, in a 
separate building, or outdoors?
In the dwelling
In a separate building
1
2
Outdoors
No food cooked in 
household 
Other 
(specify___)
3
4 => D113
6
D112.1 
What is your main source of cooking fuel?
 
Electricity from EUCL
LPG/Natural gas
Biogas
Oil/Kerosene
Charcoal
Firewood
Straw/Shrubs/Grass
Agricultural Crop
1 =>D113.1
2
3
4
5=>D113.1
6 =>D113.1
7
8
Animal Dung
Crop Waste
Solar Power
Biomass Pellets
Other(specify)
Don’t Know
Refuse
9
10
11
12
66
88 =>D113.1
99 =>D113.1
D112.2 What is the total value of the fuel you used for cooking in the past 30 days, whether 
purchased or gathered? RWF
D113.1 What is your main source of lighting fuel? 
Electricity from EUCL
Biogas
Generator
Oil/Kerosene Lamp
Firewood
Candle
1 =>D114
2
3
4
5 =>D114
6
Solar Panel
Batteries + Bulb
Other (specify____)
Don’t Know
Refuse
7
8
66
88 =>D114
99 =>D114
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 171
D113.2 What is the total value of the fuel you used for lighting in 
the past 30 days? 
RWF
D114 If answer to D112.1 is 6 (Firewood) or D113.1 is 5 
(Firewood), circle YES for D114 and answer D115. 
Have you used firewood for fuel in the last 30 days? 
Yes
1 No 2 =>D116
D115 What is the total value of the firewood you used in the past 30 days for cooking or lighting, 
whether gathered or purchased? (Estimate purchase cost of gathered wood)
RWF
D116 If answer to D112.1 is 5 (Charcoal) record 1=Yes for D116 and answer D117.
Have you used charcoal for fuel in the last 30 days?
Yes
No
1
2 >>D118 
D117. What is the total value of the charcoal you used in the past 30 days, whether produced or 
purchased? (Estimate purchase cost of own produced charcoal)
RWF
D118 What is your main source of drinking 
water for members of your household?
Tube well or Borehole
Piped Water:
 Piped into dwelling 
 Piped into plot/yard
 Public tap/standpipe
Dug Well:
 Protected well
 Unprotected well
Water from Spring:
 Protected spring
1
2 => D120
3 => D120
4
5
6
7
 Unprotected spring
Rain water
Tanker Truck 
Cart with small tank
Surface water (dam, stream, 
irrigation)
Bottled water 
Other (specify) ______ 
Don’t know
Refuse
8
9
10
11
12
 
13
66
88
99
D119. Where is the water source located? In own dwelling 1
172 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
In own yard/plot 
Elsewhere
2
3
D120. What was the total cost of water for your household in the past 30 days? (IF NONE, ENTER 0)
RWF
D126. What kind of toilet facility do 
members of your household usually use? 
Flush or Pour Flush Toilet:
 Flush to piped sewer system
 Flush to septic tank
 Flush to pit latrine 
 Flush to somewhere else
Flush, don’t know where
Pit Latrine:
 Ventilated improved pit latrine
 Pit latrine with slab
 Pit latrine without slab/open pit
 
11
12
13
14
15
21
22
23
Composting toilet
Bucket toilet
Hanging toilet / hanging latrine
No facility/bush/field
Other (specify______)
Refuse 
31
41
51
61=>E101
66
99=>E101
D126b. OBSERVATION ONLY: OBSERVE PRESENCE OF COVER FOR TOILET FACILITY
Toilet cover present
No toilet cover present
1
2
D127. Do you share this toilet facility with other households? Yes 1 N
o
2=>>E101
D128. How many households use this toilet facility? 
IF LESS THAN 10 , PUT NO. OF HOUSEHOLDS
IF 10 OR MORE HOUSEHOLDS PUT 95
IF DON’T KNOW PUT 88
--- END OF SECTION --
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 173
MODULE E. Household Transfers and Credit Sent / Received
SECTION E1. TRANSFERS GIVEN TO INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSEHOLD OR TO ORGANIZATIONS
1A. 
Cash Gifts
1B. 
Gifts of food or other 
consumables
1C. 
Labor or time
1D. 
Farming Assets, Tools, animals and 
other farm inputs
E101. In the last 12 months, have any 
members of your household provided any 
[ITEM] to persons or organizations who are 
not members of your household? For 
example to children, parents, relatives or 
friends living elsewhere?
*If no, probe for gifts, money given for 
funerals, child support, weddings, goods or 
money to help sick persons – in the last 12 
months (include transfers for schooling 
expenses, medical expenses, and gifts of 
land). Ask about children who no longer live 
in the household and ask about gifts, loans and 
transfers to these children.
NOTE: IF TRANSFER IS TO AN 
INDIVIDUAL, THAT INDIVIDUAL 
CANNOT BE LISTED ON THE 
HOUSEHOLD ROSTER
Yes 1
No 2
DK 8
Refuse 9
No, DK, Refused 
--> 1B.
Yes 1
No 2
DK 8
Refuse 9
No, DK, Refused
--> 1C.
Yes 1
No 2
DK 8
Refuse 9
No, DK, Refused 
--> 1D.
Yes 1
No 2
DK 8
Refuse 9
No, DK, Refused 
--> E201.
E102. To how many different people did 
members of your household send money, 
goods, and/or gifts to in the last 12 months? 
174 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
E103. In the last 12 months, how much has 
your household sent to persons who are not 
members of your household, including money 
and the value of gifts in kind? 
RWF RWF RWF RWF
SECTION E2. TRANSFERS RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUALS
2A.Cash Gifts 2B.Gifts of food or other 
consumables
2C.Labor or time 2D.Farming Assets, Tools, 
animals and other farm 
inputs
E201
In the last 12 months, has anyone in your household received 
[ITEM] from individuals (not organizations) who are not 
members of your household? For example from children, 
parents, relatives or friends living elsewhere?
*If No, probe for gifts, money received for funerals, child 
support, weddings, goods or money to help sick persons – in 
the last 12 months (include transfers for schooling expenses, 
medical expenses, and gifts of land). Refer back to the 
household roster if needed.
Yes 1
No 2
DK 8
Refuse 9
No, DK, Refused 
--> 2B.
Yes 1
No 2
DK 8
Refuse 9
No, DK, Refused 
--> 2C.
Yes 1
No 2
DK 8
Refuse 9
No, DK, Refused 
--> 2D.
Yes 1
No 2
DK 8
Refuse 9
No, DK, Refused 
--> E301.
E202
From how many different people (who are not members of 
your household) did members of your household receive 
money, goods, and/or gifts in the last 12 months? 
E203
In the last 12 months, across all household members, how 
much did your household receive (from persons who are not 
members of your household), including money and the value of 
gifts in kind?
RWF RWF RWF RWF
E204
Do members of your household have to repay any part of this 
amount?
Yes 1
No 2
DK 8
Refuse 9
Yes 1
No 2
DK 8
Refuse 9
Yes 1
No 2
DK 8
Refuse 9
Yes 1
No 2
DK 8
Refuse 9
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 175
No, DK, Refuse skip to next 
transfer or E301
No, DK, Refuse skip to next 
transfer or E301
No, DK, Refuse skip to next 
transfer or E301
No, DK, Refuse skip to 
E301
E205 How much has been already repaid?
RWF RWF RWF RWF
SECTION E3. TRANSFERS RECEIVED NGO & GOVERNMENT 
Now I’m going to ask you about money or gifts received from non-governmental organizations.
E301
Has anyone in your household received money, goods, or consumption support from 
Twiyubake in the last 12 months?
Yes 
No 
1
2 => E302c
DK
Refuse 
 8 => E302c
9 => E302c
E302 
IF HOUSEHOLD DOES NOT KNOW 
AMOUNT, ENTER 8888888 (same number of 
digits as field); IF HOUSEHOLD REFUSES TO 
ANSWER, ENTER 9999999 (same number of 
digits as field)
For each of the items:
E302a Did your household 
receive the item from 
Twiyubake?
Yes No DK Refuse
SKIP IF E302.1 = NO, DK, REFUSE
E302b. How much in total value did your household receive 
(including all members) for each of the items listed in the past 12 
months?
E302.1 Cash Gifts
 1 2 8 9
RWF
E302.2 Gifts of food or other consumables
 1 2 8 9
RWF
E302.3 School Uniforms/ Bursary
 1 2 8 9
RWF
E302.4 School books, materials, supplies
 1 2 8 9
RWF
E302.5 Farming Assets, Tools, animals and other farm 
inputs
 1 2 8 9
RWF
176 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
E302.6 Other: __________________________
 1 2 8 9
RWF
E302
c 
Has anyone in your household received money, goods, or consumption support from 
Gikuriro/Give Directly in the last 12 months?
Yes 
No 
1
2 => E303
DK
Refuse 
8 => E303
9 => E303
E302
d 
In the last 12 months, how much did your household receive from Gikuriro/Give 
Directly including money and the value of gifts in kind? RWF
E303 
Has anyone in your household received money or gifts from any other organization (not 
including Twiyubake or the government) in the last 12 months? 
* Probe for food transfers from organizations (ex: Church, Bank, Food 
Organization), loans from banks, loans from churches, etc.
Yes
No
1
2=> E306
DK 
Refuse 
8=> E306
9=> E306
Instructions for E305. 
IF HOUSEHOLD DOES NOT KNOW 
AMOUNT, ENTER 8888888 (same number of 
digits as field); IF HOUSEHOLD REFUSES TO 
ANSWER, ENTER 9999999 (same number of 
digits as field)
For each of the items: 
E304. Did your household 
receive the item from 
organizations?
Yes No DK Refuse
SKIP IF E304 = NO, DK, REFUSE
E305. How much in total value did your household receive 
(including all members) for each of the items listed in the past 12 
months?
E304.1 Cash Gifts
 1 2 8 9
RWF
E304.2 Gifts of food or other consumables
 1 2 8 9
RWF
E304.3 School Uniforms/ Bursary
 1 2 8 9
RWF
E304.4 Farming Assets, Tools, animals and other 
farm inputs
 1 2 8 9
RWF
E304.5 Other: __________________________
 1 2 8 9
RWF
Now I’m going to ask you about money or gifts received from government or public sources. 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 177
For question E307:
Instruction to interviewer: 
IF HOUSEHOLD DOES NOT KNOW AMOUNT, ENTER 
8888888 (same number of digits as field); 
IF HOUSEHOLD REFUSES TO ANSWER, ENTER 9999999 
(same number of digits as field)
For each of the items:
E306. Has anyone in your 
household received benefits from 
any government or public sources 
in the last 12 months?
Yes No DK Refuse
SKIP IF E306 = NO, DK, REFUSE
E307. Including all household members, how 
much in total value did your household 
receive for each of the items listed in the past 
12 months?
a) Social Security/ Caisse Sociale du Rwanda 1 2 8 9
 
b) VUP Direct Support program 1 2 8 9
RWF
c) Old Age Grant 1 2 8 9
RWF
d) Disability Pension 1 2 8 9
RWF
e) Survivors Pension 1 2 8 9
RWF
f) FARG 1 2 8 9
RWF
g) Local government education support 1 2 8 9 RWF
h) Educational scholarships (primary, secondary, university, 
TVET) 1 2 8 9
RWF
i) Food relief 1 2 8 9
RWF
j) Allowance for dismissal or termination of employment 1 2 8 9
RWF
RW
F
178 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
k) Government donations (cell phones, bicycles, mosquito 
nets, etc.) 1 2 8 9
RWF
l) Ubedehe Credit Scheme Loan 1 2 8 9
RWF
m) RSSP program (Rural Sector Support Program) 1 2 8 9
RWF
n) CBHI (Community Based Health Insurance; ex. MUSA, 
Mutuelles de Sante; Military Medical Insurance; and 
Rwanda Health Insurance Scheme.)
1 2 8 9
RWF
o) Fertilizer subsidies and seeds 1 2 8 9
RWF
p) One Cow per Family (small animals for poor families) 1 2 8 9
RWF
q) Other (specify)______________________________ 1 2 8 9
RWF
Now I am going to ask you about any debts, loans or acquired money you or your household has received.
For question E309:
Instruction to interviewer: 
IF HOUSEHOLD DOES NOT KNOW 
AMOUNT, ENTER 8888888 (same 
number of digits as field); 
IF HOUSEHOLD REFUSES TO 
ANSWER, ENTER 9999999 (same 
number of digits as field)
E308. Do you or someone else in this 
household have a debt, loan, or acquired 
money in the past 12 months from any of 
the following sources?
Yes No DK Refuse
SKIP IF E308 = NO, DK, REFUSE
E309. Including all household members, how much in total 
value did your household acquire from each of the items listed 
in the past 12 months?
a) Bank
1 2 8 9 RWF
b) Microfinance
1 2 8 9 RWF
c) SACCO
1 2 8 9
RWF
d) Integrated savings and 
lending group (ISLG) 1 2 8 9
RWF
e) Tontine 
1 2 8 9
RWF
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 179
f) Supplier/employer 
1 2 8 9
RWF
g) Client
1 2 8 9
RWF
h) Other (specify)______
1 2 8 9
RWF
180 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
 
SECTION E4. SAVINGS
For E404. Savings Institution Codes: 1=Commercial bank, 2=Microfinance, 3= Savings & credit cooperatives, 6=Other Specify (_______)
E400 Are there members of your household who save with any savings institution (including a tontine/community savings)? Yes 1
No 2=>F101
E401
. 
Acco
unt 
Line
No.
E402.
ID of the 
person 
saving
(From 
Roster)
E403. 
Does 
[INITI
AL]
have a 
savings 
accoun
t? 
1=Yes
2=No
If No 
=>>E
408
E404.
What 
instituti
on 
does 
[INITI
AL]
save 
with? 
See 
institu
tion 
codes
above
E405.
What is the current 
amount of money in 
the savings account?
E406. 
How much has 
[INITIAL] deposited 
in the account over the 
last 12 months?
E407. 
How much has the 
person withdrawn 
over the course of the 
last 12 months?
E408. 
Does 
"INITI
AL" 
particip
ate in a 
tontine
? 
1=Yes
2=No 
If No 
=>next 
person
E409.
What was the total 
amount received over 
the course of last 12 
months?
E410.
What was the total 
amount contributed 
over the course of the
last 12 months?
RWF RWF RWF RWF
01
02
03
04
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 181
05
06
07
08
09
10
--- END OF SECTION ---
MODULE F. Household Consumption Expenditure
Enumerator: Ask these questions about all household members. Ask whoever is most knowledgeable about the food the household members have eaten in the past week, as well as any non￾food items that household members have bought. The same respondent should be asked all the questions in this module.
F100. Record Line Number of Respondent for this Module: |__|__|__|
SECTION F1. FOOD CONSUMPTION OVER PAST MONTH (FOUR WEEKS)
In this section, we are interested in the different types of food that you and other members of your household may have consumed in the last 4 weeks. We would like 
you to include food eaten communally in the household and separately by individual household members, both inside and outside the home. For each food item, we 
would like you to answer for the amount actually consumed. For example, if you purchased 16 bananas in the last 4 weeks, but your household only consumed 12 of 
those bananas, your answers should be about those 12 consumed bananas and not all 16 purchased bananas.
182 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
F101. 
Item 
Code
F102. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or 
others in your 
household consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F103. Of the 
total amount of 
[ITEM] that 
your household 
consumed, did 
any come from 
purchases?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 
=>F105
F104. How much 
did you spend on 
[ITEM] that you 
consumed over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F105. Of the total 
amount of [ITEM] 
that your 
household 
consumed, did any 
come from gifts?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F107
F106. What would 
you say is the value 
of the amount you 
consumed from 
gifts over the last 4 
weeks?
Amount 
____RWF
F107. Has your 
household 
consumed any
[ITEM] from your 
own production
or from your 
storage over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F108. What would 
you say is the value of 
the amount you 
consumed from your 
own production or 
from your storage over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ____RWF
ITEM F101 F102 F103 F104 F105 F106 F107 F108
CEREALS
Rice (local, imported) 1001
Maize (fresh and dry 
maize-grain)
1002
Sorghum (including 
fermented)
1003
Other cereals (Wheat 
grain and others )
1004
CEREAL FLOURS
Corn (flour)
1005
Sorghum (flour) 1006
Flours of other cereals 
(wheat, millet, others)
1007
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 183
F101. 
Item 
Code
F102. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or 
others in your 
household consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F103. Of the 
total amount of 
[ITEM] that 
your household 
consumed, did 
any come from 
purchases?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 
=>F105
F104. How much 
did you spend on 
[ITEM] that you 
consumed over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F105. Of the total 
amount of [ITEM] 
that your 
household 
consumed, did any 
come from gifts?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F107
F106. What would 
you say is the value 
of the amount you 
consumed from 
gifts over the last 4 
weeks?
Amount 
____RWF
F107. Has your 
household 
consumed any
[ITEM] from your 
own production
or from your 
storage over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F108. What would 
you say is the value of 
the amount you 
consumed from your 
own production or 
from your storage over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ____RWF
ITEM F101 F102 F103 F104 F105 F106 F107 F108
FOOD PRODUCTS
Pasta, Bread, 
Cakes/Chapati/Manda
zi, Biscuits
1008
MEAT, FISH, ANIMAL & DAIRY PRODUCTS
Beef meat 1009
Other meat 
(sheep/mutton/lamb, 
goat, pork, rabbit, 
wild, chicken, 
preserved/canned 
meat)
1010
Sausages, bacon, 
ham,etc
1011
Eggs 1012
184 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
F101. 
Item 
Code
F102. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or 
others in your 
household consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F103. Of the 
total amount of 
[ITEM] that 
your household 
consumed, did 
any come from 
purchases?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 
=>F105
F104. How much 
did you spend on 
[ITEM] that you 
consumed over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F105. Of the total 
amount of [ITEM] 
that your 
household 
consumed, did any 
come from gifts?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F107
F106. What would 
you say is the value 
of the amount you 
consumed from 
gifts over the last 4 
weeks?
Amount 
____RWF
F107. Has your 
household 
consumed any
[ITEM] from your 
own production
or from your 
storage over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F108. What would 
you say is the value of 
the amount you 
consumed from your 
own production or 
from your storage over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ____RWF
ITEM F101 F102 F103 F104 F105 F106 F107 F108
Fish (fresh / frozen/
dry/smoked, 
preserved/canned)
1013
Fresh milk
1015
Curdled Milk
1016
Milk powder, Other 
milk products
(condensed milk, 
yogurt, ice cream)
1017
Cheese, butter, 
margarine
1019
EDIBLE OILS
Peanut oil
1020
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 185
F101. 
Item 
Code
F102. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or 
others in your 
household consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F103. Of the 
total amount of 
[ITEM] that 
your household 
consumed, did 
any come from 
purchases?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 
=>F105
F104. How much 
did you spend on 
[ITEM] that you 
consumed over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F105. Of the total 
amount of [ITEM] 
that your 
household 
consumed, did any 
come from gifts?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F107
F106. What would 
you say is the value 
of the amount you 
consumed from 
gifts over the last 4 
weeks?
Amount 
____RWF
F107. Has your 
household 
consumed any
[ITEM] from your 
own production
or from your 
storage over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F108. What would 
you say is the value of 
the amount you 
consumed from your 
own production or 
from your storage over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ____RWF
ITEM F101 F102 F103 F104 F105 F106 F107 F108
Palm oil 1021
Other plant oils 1022
FRUITS
Banana fruit (Imineke)
1023
Banana - cooking 
(Inyamunyo)
1024
Mangos
1025
Papayas 1026
Avocado
1027
Pineapple 1028
186 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
F101. 
Item 
Code
F102. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or 
others in your 
household consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F103. Of the 
total amount of 
[ITEM] that 
your household 
consumed, did 
any come from 
purchases?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 
=>F105
F104. How much 
did you spend on 
[ITEM] that you 
consumed over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F105. Of the total 
amount of [ITEM] 
that your 
household 
consumed, did any 
come from gifts?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F107
F106. What would 
you say is the value 
of the amount you 
consumed from 
gifts over the last 4 
weeks?
Amount 
____RWF
F107. Has your 
household 
consumed any
[ITEM] from your 
own production
or from your 
storage over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F108. What would 
you say is the value of 
the amount you 
consumed from your 
own production or 
from your storage over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ____RWF
ITEM F101 F102 F103 F104 F105 F106 F107 F108
Guava
1029
Orange, tangerine
(local, imported)
1030
Citron - Lemon 1031
Passion Fruit
1032
Plums
1033
Apples
1034
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 187
F101. 
Item 
Code
F102. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or 
others in your 
household consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F103. Of the 
total amount of 
[ITEM] that 
your household 
consumed, did 
any come from 
purchases?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 
=>F105
F104. How much 
did you spend on 
[ITEM] that you 
consumed over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F105. Of the total 
amount of [ITEM] 
that your 
household 
consumed, did any 
come from gifts?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F107
F106. What would 
you say is the value 
of the amount you 
consumed from 
gifts over the last 4 
weeks?
Amount 
____RWF
F107. Has your 
household 
consumed any
[ITEM] from your 
own production
or from your 
storage over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F108. What would 
you say is the value of 
the amount you 
consumed from your 
own production or 
from your storage over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ____RWF
ITEM F101 F102 F103 F104 F105 F106 F107 F108
LEGUMES
Beans (string or fresh)
1035
Dry beans 1036
Soya (fresh, dry, flour)
1037
Ground nuts (peanuts, 
grilled ground nuts)
1039
Groundnut flour
1040
Green pea (fresh, dry) 1041
VEGETABLES
Tomato 1042
188 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
F101. 
Item 
Code
F102. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or 
others in your 
household consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F103. Of the 
total amount of 
[ITEM] that 
your household 
consumed, did 
any come from 
purchases?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 
=>F105
F104. How much 
did you spend on 
[ITEM] that you 
consumed over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F105. Of the total 
amount of [ITEM] 
that your 
household 
consumed, did any 
come from gifts?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F107
F106. What would 
you say is the value 
of the amount you 
consumed from 
gifts over the last 4 
weeks?
Amount 
____RWF
F107. Has your 
household 
consumed any
[ITEM] from your 
own production
or from your 
storage over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F108. What would 
you say is the value of 
the amount you 
consumed from your 
own production or 
from your storage over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ____RWF
ITEM F101 F102 F103 F104 F105 F106 F107 F108
Onion 1043
Garlic 1044
Pepper 1045
Pumpkin 1046
Eggplant 1047
Carrot
1048
Leeks
1049
Celery
1050
Mushrooms
1051
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 189
F101. 
Item 
Code
F102. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or 
others in your 
household consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F103. Of the 
total amount of 
[ITEM] that 
your household 
consumed, did 
any come from 
purchases?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 
=>F105
F104. How much 
did you spend on 
[ITEM] that you 
consumed over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F105. Of the total 
amount of [ITEM] 
that your 
household 
consumed, did any 
come from gifts?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F107
F106. What would 
you say is the value 
of the amount you 
consumed from 
gifts over the last 4 
weeks?
Amount 
____RWF
F107. Has your 
household 
consumed any
[ITEM] from your 
own production
or from your 
storage over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F108. What would 
you say is the value of 
the amount you 
consumed from your 
own production or 
from your storage over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ____RWF
ITEM F101 F102 F103 F104 F105 F106 F107 F108
Cassava leaves
1052
Amarante (small and 
large leafed green)
1053
Cabbages
1054
Other vegetables
(cucumber, lettuce, 
parsley, spinach
1055
ROOTS AND TUBERS
Potatoes (Irish, sweet) 1056
Cassava (root) 1057
Cassava (fermented) 1058
Cassava (flour) 1059
190 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
F101. 
Item 
Code
F102. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or 
others in your 
household consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F103. Of the 
total amount of 
[ITEM] that 
your household 
consumed, did 
any come from 
purchases?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 
=>F105
F104. How much 
did you spend on 
[ITEM] that you 
consumed over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F105. Of the total 
amount of [ITEM] 
that your 
household 
consumed, did any 
come from gifts?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F107
F106. What would 
you say is the value 
of the amount you 
consumed from 
gifts over the last 4 
weeks?
Amount 
____RWF
F107. Has your 
household 
consumed any
[ITEM] from your 
own production
or from your 
storage over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F108. What would 
you say is the value of 
the amount you 
consumed from your 
own production or 
from your storage over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ____RWF
ITEM F101 F102 F103 F104 F105 F106 F107 F108
Tarot/amateke 1060
Yams/Ibikoro
1061
SUGAR AND SWEETS
Sugar (local, 
imported)
1062
Sugarcane 1063
1064
Candy / Gum
1065
Powdered juice(super 
dip)
1066
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 191
F101. 
Item 
Code
F102. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or 
others in your 
household consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F103. Of the 
total amount of 
[ITEM] that 
your household 
consumed, did 
any come from 
purchases?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 
=>F105
F104. How much 
did you spend on 
[ITEM] that you 
consumed over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F105. Of the total 
amount of [ITEM] 
that your 
household 
consumed, did any 
come from gifts?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F107
F106. What would 
you say is the value 
of the amount you 
consumed from 
gifts over the last 4 
weeks?
Amount 
____RWF
F107. Has your 
household 
consumed any
[ITEM] from your 
own production
or from your 
storage over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F108. What would 
you say is the value of 
the amount you 
consumed from your 
own production or 
from your storage over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ____RWF
ITEM F101 F102 F103 F104 F105 F106 F107 F108
Other sugar products 
(jam/marmalade, 
honey)
1067
SPICES AND OTHER FOOD ITEMS
Salt 1068
Tomato concentrate
1069
Pepper-raw 1070
Other food items 
(pepper￾ground/liquid, 
vinegar, bouillon 
cubes, mayonnaise, 
baby food)
1071
BEVERAGES
192 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
F101. 
Item 
Code
F102. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or 
others in your 
household consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F103. Of the 
total amount of 
[ITEM] that 
your household 
consumed, did 
any come from 
purchases?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 
=>F105
F104. How much 
did you spend on 
[ITEM] that you 
consumed over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F105. Of the total 
amount of [ITEM] 
that your 
household 
consumed, did any 
come from gifts?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F107
F106. What would 
you say is the value 
of the amount you 
consumed from 
gifts over the last 4 
weeks?
Amount 
____RWF
F107. Has your 
household 
consumed any
[ITEM] from your 
own production
or from your 
storage over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F108. What would 
you say is the value of 
the amount you 
consumed from your 
own production or 
from your storage over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ____RWF
ITEM F101 F102 F103 F104 F105 F106 F107 F108
Coffee (local, 
imported)
1072
Tea (local, imported)
1073
Mineral water
1074
Sorghum 
juice(Ubushera)
1075
Banana juice and 
banana beer (like 
Ikakama/Inkashi)
1076
Other juices (local, 
imported–passion 
fruit, others)
1077
Carbonated Soft 
Drinks
1078
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 193
F101. 
Item 
Code
F102. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or 
others in your 
household consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F103. Of the 
total amount of 
[ITEM] that 
your household 
consumed, did 
any come from 
purchases?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 
=>F105
F104. How much 
did you spend on 
[ITEM] that you 
consumed over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F105. Of the total 
amount of [ITEM] 
that your 
household 
consumed, did any 
come from gifts?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F107
F106. What would 
you say is the value 
of the amount you 
consumed from 
gifts over the last 4 
weeks?
Amount 
____RWF
F107. Has your 
household 
consumed any
[ITEM] from your 
own production
or from your 
storage over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F108. What would 
you say is the value of 
the amount you 
consumed from your 
own production or 
from your storage over 
the last 4 weeks?
Amount ____RWF
ITEM F101 F102 F103 F104 F105 F106 F107 F108
Local sorghum 
beer(ikigage)
1079
Commercial beer 
(local)
1080
Other alcoholic drinks 
(imported/commercia
l beer, wine, liquor)
1081
MEALS AND DRINKS PURCHASED OUTSIDE
Restaurant food & 
drinks, Other meals 
and drinks purchased 
outside the household
(Shish 
Kebab(brochette),chic
ken/fish grilled, bar 
foods, bar drinks)
1082
194 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
SECTION F2. NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES OVER PAST ONE MONTH (FOUR WEEKS)
One Month Recall
F201. 
Item 
code
F202. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or others 
in your household used
or consumed any 
[ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next Item
F203. Has your 
household purchased 
any [ITEM] over the 
last 4 weeks? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F205
F204. How much did 
you spend on [ITEM] 
over the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F205. Has your 
household received as a 
gift any [ITEM] over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F206. What would 
you say is the value of 
the gifts received?
Amount ___RWF
F201 F202 F203 F204 F205 F206
DOMESTIC HYGIENE & PRODUCTS
Broom/Brush 201
Shoe brush and polish 202
Other cleaning items(sponges, window cleaning 
products, bleach, disinfectants, cleaners)
203
Wages and fees for cleaning services (wages for 
household/domestic help, laundry services, 
rubbish collection services)
204
Soaps, detergents and shampoos 205
Toilet paper 206 
Insecticides 207
PERSONAL CARE
Men's haircut (barber) 208
Women's haircut (stylist & treatment) 209 
Hair products 210
Shaving accessories 211
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 195
One Month Recall
F201. 
Item 
code
F202. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or others 
in your household used
or consumed any 
[ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next Item
F203. Has your 
household purchased 
any [ITEM] over the 
last 4 weeks? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F205
F204. How much did 
you spend on [ITEM] 
over the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F205. Has your 
household received as a 
gift any [ITEM] over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F206. What would 
you say is the value of 
the gifts received?
Amount ___RWF
F201 F202 F203 F204 F205 F206
Sanitary napkins 212
Beauty/cosmetics products 213
Other personal care and hygiene (toothpaste and 
accessories, razor blades and shaving 
accessories, combs, deodorants)
214
COMMUNICATION, DOCUMENTS, ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Connectivity e.g. Rwandatel/MTN fixed, line 
charges, internet connection, fax and courier 
services etc.
215 
Photocopies/printing/scanner/other secretarial 
services
216
Film and developing, passport photos 217
Airtime (cell phone) cards/Me 2 you 218
Other phone, internet expenses 219
Stationary (paper, staples, pen, pencil, etc..) 220
Security services 221
TRANSPORTATION
196 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
One Month Recall
F201. 
Item 
code
F202. Over the last 4 
weeks, have you or others 
in your household used
or consumed any 
[ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next Item
F203. Has your 
household purchased 
any [ITEM] over the 
last 4 weeks? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F205
F204. How much did 
you spend on [ITEM] 
over the last 4 weeks?
Amount ___RWF
F205. Has your 
household received as a 
gift any [ITEM] over the 
last 4 weeks?
1=Yes, 2=No, 8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F206. What would 
you say is the value of 
the gifts received?
Amount ___RWF
F201 F202 F203 F204 F205 F206
Repair, spare parts, maintenance of vehicles 
(including bicycles, motorcycle)
222
Public transport by taxi, minibus, bus, including 
coaster, Other local transport (truck, boat, other)
223
Transport by motorcycle/bicycle 224
Fuel for transportation (Petrol, diesel) 226
LEISURE & CULTURE
Recreational items (books, magazines, toys, 
audio video cassettes, CDS, DVD disks, etc.)
227
BASIC PREVENTION AND MEDICINES
Pain relievers (Aspirin/Paracetamol/Hedex,…) 228
Antimalarial drugs 229
Worm medicine 230
Condoms and contraceptive drugs, Other 
basic/preventive medicine (including 
iodine/alcohol)
231 
SECTION F3. NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES OVER PAST TWELVE MONTHS
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 197
12 MONTH RECALL
F301. 
Item 
code
F302. Over the 
last 12 months, 
have you or others 
in your household 
used or consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F303. Has your 
household 
purchased any 
[ITEM] over the 
last 12 months? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F205
F304. How much did you spend 
on [ITEM] over the last 12 
months?
Amount ___RWF
F305. Has your 
household 
received as a gift 
any [ITEM] over 
the last 12 
months?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F306. What would you say is the 
value of the gifts received over 
the last 12 months?
Amount 
___RWF
F301 F302 F303 F304 F305 F306
CLOTHING
Fabric (cloth; for men or women) 301
Wrap around cloth for 
women(Igitenge)
302
Men's garments 303
Women's garments 304
Children's clothing (excluding 
school uniform)
305
Men's underwear 306
Women's underwear 307
Children's underwear 308
Tailoring (for men and women) 309
Men's footwear 310
Women's footwear 311
198 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
12 MONTH RECALL
F301. 
Item 
code
F302. Over the 
last 12 months, 
have you or others 
in your household 
used or consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F303. Has your 
household 
purchased any 
[ITEM] over the 
last 12 months? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F205
F304. How much did you spend 
on [ITEM] over the last 12 
months?
Amount ___RWF
F305. Has your 
household 
received as a gift 
any [ITEM] over 
the last 12 
months?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F306. What would you say is the 
value of the gifts received over 
the last 12 months?
Amount 
___RWF
F301 F302 F303 F304 F305 F306
Children's footwear 312
Men's accessories (ties, hats, 
belts, sunglasses, watches)
313
Women's accessories (scarves, 
hats, belts, sunglasses, jewelry, 
watches)
314
Clothing and shoe repairs 315
PERSONAL BELONGINGS
Umbrellas, Cases (metal/wooden 
cases, suitcases) and bags (like 
travel bags and hand bags)
316
HOUSEHOLD REPAIRS, FURNISHINGS & APPLIANCES
Repairs (building repairs - supplies 
and labor, furniture repairs)
318
Mattresses 319
Floor coverings (rugs, carpets, 
mats)
320
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 199
12 MONTH RECALL
F301. 
Item 
code
F302. Over the 
last 12 months, 
have you or others 
in your household 
used or consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F303. Has your 
household 
purchased any 
[ITEM] over the 
last 12 months? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F205
F304. How much did you spend 
on [ITEM] over the last 12 
months?
Amount ___RWF
F305. Has your 
household 
received as a gift 
any [ITEM] over 
the last 12 
months?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F306. What would you say is the 
value of the gifts received over 
the last 12 months?
Amount 
___RWF
F301 F302 F303 F304 F305 F306
Bedding 321
Other household cloths and 
textiles (curtains, tablecloths, 
rags)
322
Iron (electric and non-electric) 323
Dishes and kitchen utensils (pots 
and pans), and cutlery
324
Torch (flashlight) 325
Other household goods 326
LEISURE & CULTURE
Entertainment venue entrance 
fees- stadium entry, dancing, 
cinema/movie entry/video club, 
Leisure and cultural items (like 
cameras, sporting equipment, 
musical instruments)
330
200 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
12 MONTH RECALL
F301. 
Item 
code
F302. Over the 
last 12 months, 
have you or others 
in your household 
used or consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F303. Has your 
household 
purchased any 
[ITEM] over the 
last 12 months? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F205
F304. How much did you spend 
on [ITEM] over the last 12 
months?
Amount ___RWF
F305. Has your 
household 
received as a gift 
any [ITEM] over 
the last 12 
months?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F306. What would you say is the 
value of the gifts received over 
the last 12 months?
Amount 
___RWF
F301 F302 F303 F304 F305 F306
MEDICAL EXPENSES
Medical consultations (for any 
health problem, not giving birth)
332
Medical exams
333
Hospitalization
334
Health insurance (Mutuelle, 
RAMA, MMI, etc.)
335
Giving birth (all expenses related 
to birth delivery)
336
Medical paraphernalia 
(spectacles/eye lenses, dentures, 
hearing aids, prosthetic limbs, 
wheel chair, crutches)
337
Drugs and medicine (for diabetes, 
heart disease, high/low blood 
pressure, asthma, ARV, other 
chronic diseases, or drugs 
prescribed by the doctor) 
338
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 201
12 MONTH RECALL
F301. 
Item 
code
F302. Over the 
last 12 months, 
have you or others 
in your household 
used or consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F303. Has your 
household 
purchased any 
[ITEM] over the 
last 12 months? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F205
F304. How much did you spend 
on [ITEM] over the last 12 
months?
Amount ___RWF
F305. Has your 
household 
received as a gift 
any [ITEM] over 
the last 12 
months?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F306. What would you say is the 
value of the gifts received over 
the last 12 months?
Amount 
___RWF
F301 F302 F303 F304 F305 F306
MISCELLANEOUS
Newspapers
339
Matches
340
Batteries
341
Cigarettes and tobacco
342
Other non-food products
343
OTHER SERVICES
Nursery and daycare fees 344
Issue of administrative (official) 
documents
345
Weddings/Introductions 346
202 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
12 MONTH RECALL
F301. 
Item 
code
F302. Over the 
last 12 months, 
have you or others 
in your household 
used or consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F303. Has your 
household 
purchased any 
[ITEM] over the 
last 12 months? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F205
F304. How much did you spend 
on [ITEM] over the last 12 
months?
Amount ___RWF
F305. Has your 
household 
received as a gift 
any [ITEM] over 
the last 12 
months?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F306. What would you say is the 
value of the gifts received over 
the last 12 months?
Amount 
___RWF
F301 F302 F303 F304 F305 F306
Baptism, Religious Festivals
347
Death (including funerary articles 
like coffins)
348
Sacrifices, offerings, Other 
ceremonies (like child naming and 
graduation)
349
Other expenditures (specify)
351
EDUCATION
Registration, school fees and 
tuition
352
Parent contributions to the school 
(to infrastructure, maintenance, 
others)
353
School uniforms and other sports 
uniforms 
354
School books and supplies 
355
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 203
12 MONTH RECALL
F301. 
Item 
code
F302. Over the 
last 12 months, 
have you or others 
in your household 
used or consumed 
any [ITEM]? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F303. Has your 
household 
purchased any 
[ITEM] over the 
last 12 months? 
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>F205
F304. How much did you spend 
on [ITEM] over the last 12 
months?
Amount ___RWF
F305. Has your 
household 
received as a gift 
any [ITEM] over 
the last 12 
months?
1=Yes, 2=No, 
8=DK, 
9=Refused.
If 2,8,9 =>Next 
Item
F306. What would you say is the 
value of the gifts received over 
the last 12 months?
Amount 
___RWF
F301 F302 F303 F304 F305 F306
Transportation to and from school 
356
Room and board
357
Other education expenditures (field 
trips, clubs, tutoring, after school 
activities, school insurance, others)
358
SECTION F4. DURABLE GOODS EXPENDITURES 
204 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
ITEM
CODE
F402. Does your 
household own a 
[ITEM]?
1=YES; 2=NO; 
8=DK; 
9=REFUSED
2/8/9 =>> 
NEXT ITEM
F403. 
How 
many 
[ITEM]s 
do you 
own?
F406. Did you purchase or 
pay for any of these [ITEM]s 
in the last 12 months?
1=YES; 2=NO; 8=DK; 
9=REFUSED
2/8/9 =>> NEXT ITEM
F407. How much in total did you 
pay for [ITEM]s in the last 12 
months?
IF DK RECORD 88888 
(LENGTH OF FIELD)
_____RWF
ITEM F401 F402 F403 F406 F407
Dressing Table 401
Mortar/Pestle (mtondo) 402
Bed 403
Table 404
Chair 405
Fan 406
Air conditioner 407
Radio (‘wireless’) 408
Tape or CD player 409
Music System 410
Television 411
VCR or DVD player 412
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 205
ITEM
CODE
F402. Does your 
household own a 
[ITEM]?
1=YES; 2=NO; 
8=DK; 
9=REFUSED
2/8/9 =>> 
NEXT ITEM
F403. 
How 
many 
[ITEM]s 
do you 
own?
F406. Did you purchase or 
pay for any of these [ITEM]s 
in the last 12 months?
1=YES; 2=NO; 8=DK; 
9=REFUSED
2/8/9 =>> NEXT ITEM
F407. How much in total did you 
pay for [ITEM]s in the last 12 
months?
IF DK RECORD 88888 
(LENGTH OF FIELD)
_____RWF
ITEM F401 F402 F403 F406 F407
Sewing machine 413
Kerosene/paraffin stove 414
Electric or gas stove; hot 
plate 
415
Local energy saving stove 416
Refrigerator 417
Laundry/Washing 
machine
418
Bicycle (for home use 
only)
419
Motorcycle/scooter (for 
home use only)
420
Private motor vehicle or 
Minibus in running 
condition 
421
206 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
ITEM
CODE
F402. Does your 
household own a 
[ITEM]?
1=YES; 2=NO; 
8=DK; 
9=REFUSED
2/8/9 =>> 
NEXT ITEM
F403. 
How 
many 
[ITEM]s 
do you 
own?
F406. Did you purchase or 
pay for any of these [ITEM]s 
in the last 12 months?
1=YES; 2=NO; 8=DK; 
9=REFUSED
2/8/9 =>> NEXT ITEM
F407. How much in total did you 
pay for [ITEM]s in the last 12 
months?
IF DK RECORD 88888 
(LENGTH OF FIELD)
_____RWF
ITEM F401 F402 F403 F406 F407
(for home use only)
Commercial motor vehicle 
in running condition
422
423
Boat (for home use only) 424
Living room suite 
(upholstered chair, sofa 
set)
425
Bookcase 426
Cupboard, drawers, bureau 427
Lantern (paraffin) 428
Desk 429
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 207
ITEM
CODE
F402. Does your 
household own a 
[ITEM]?
1=YES; 2=NO; 
8=DK; 
9=REFUSED
2/8/9 =>> 
NEXT ITEM
F403. 
How 
many 
[ITEM]s 
do you 
own?
F406. Did you purchase or 
pay for any of these [ITEM]s 
in the last 12 months?
1=YES; 2=NO; 8=DK; 
9=REFUSED
2/8/9 =>> NEXT ITEM
F407. How much in total did you 
pay for [ITEM]s in the last 12 
months?
IF DK RECORD 88888 
(LENGTH OF FIELD)
_____RWF
ITEM F401 F402 F403 F406 F407
Clock 430
Computer equipment & 
accessories
431
Satellite dish 432
Solar panel 433
Generator 434
Freezer 435
Decorder 436
Mobile telephone 437
208 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
SECTION F5. HOUSEHOLD FARMING AND FARM ASSETS 
< Ask of the main person responsible for farming in the household>
F501. Over the past 12 months has anyone in the 
household owned or cultivated a plot of land 
including kitchen gardening? This includes all plots, 
including kitchen/garden plots, fallow, owned, 
shared-out, shared-in, rented, by the household in the 
previous 12 months (do not include land plot in 
which you worked as hired labor)?
F502. How many plots of 
land did you or someone 
in your household own or 
cultivate (not including 
those that you cultivate as 
hired labor)?
RECORD NUMBER 
OF PLOTS. 
F503. What is the total area of all 
plots owned or cultivated (in acres 
or hectares)? 
RECORD TOTAL AREA AND 
UNITS:
F504. How many of 
your plots of land 
were cultivated as a 
kitchen garden?
RECORD 
NUMBER OF 
GARDEN PLOTS. 
IF NO GARDEN 
PLOTS RECORD 
0 AND SKIP TO 
F601. 
F505. What is the total area of land that 
was cultivated as a kitchen garden (in 
acres or hectares)? 
RECORD TOTAL AREA AND 
UNITS:
F501 F502
F503.1
Quantity
F503.2
Unit
F504
F505.1
Quantity
F505.2
Unit
Yes 1
No 2 =>> Next section (AGRICULTURAL 
ASSETS: F701)
.
Acres 1
Hectares 2
.
Acres 1
Hectares 2
F506 [TENURE] Number of Plots F507 [USE] Number of Plots
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 209
SECTION F6. CULTIVATION
CROP CODES FOR F601 UNIT CODES FOR F602.2 & F603.2
1=Maize
2=Sorghum
3=Rice
4=Other cereals
5=Bananas/Plantains
6= Beans
7=Groundnuts
8=Other legumes (peas, soy)
9=Potatoes
10=Cassava 
11=Other tubers (sweet potatoes, yams, taro)
12=Vegetables (tomato, cabbage, amaranthe, onion, etc)
13=Fruit (avocado,mango,tree tomato,passion fruit, 
pineapple,orange,guava,etc.)
14=Coffee
15=Tea
16=Pyrethrum
17=Sunflower
18= None 
66=Other 
(specify________)
1=Kilogram
2=Small bucket 
(less than 5 kilo)
3=Small bowl (5 
kilo)
4=Bucket (large)
5=Large bowl
6=Bunch
7=Piece
8=Bale
9=Basket (larger than 
bucket and bowl)
10=Grams
11=small plastic 
cup (less than 1 
½ kilo)
12=Bag 100 kg
13=Bag 50 kg
14=Bag 25 kg
66=Other 
(specify)_____
Now I’d like to ask about your crops cultivated by you, someone in your household, or by labor you hired in all your plots of land. (This includes all plots, including kitchen/garden plots, fallow, 
owned, shared-out, shared-in, rented, by the household in the previous 12 months (do not include land plot in which you worked as hired labor).
F601. Please list the main crops 
cultivated over the last 12 
months:
F602. How much [CROP] in total did you, someone 
in your household, or labor you hired harvest 
during the last 12 months?
F603. How much of the [CROP] harvest did you or someone 
in your household sell?
F604. What was the value of the 
total amount of [CROP] sold?
Skip F604 if F603.1 is 0 
F601
CROP CODE ABOVE
IF NO CROPS CULTIVATED, 
RECORD 13 (NONE) AND 
SKIP TO F701
IF CROP CULTIVATED, BUT 
CROP FAILED, RECORD 
CROP CODE AND 0 FOR 
F602.1
F602.1
Quantity
F602.2
Unit
UNIT CODES ABOVE
(Skip TO NEXT CROP if 
F602.1 is 0)
F603.1
Quantity
F603.2
Unit
UNIT CODES ABOVE
(Skip if F603.1 is 0)
F604
RWF
210 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
.
.
. .
. .
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 211
SECTION F7. AGRICULTURAL ASSETS
F701. 
ITEM
CODE
F702. Does your 
household currently 
own a [ITEM]?
Response Codes: 
Yes=1 , 
No=2, DK=8 ,Ref=9 
2,8,9=>>Next item
F703. How 
many 
[ITEM]s 
does your 
household 
currently 
own?
Farm Tools
F701 F702 F703
Number
Hoes and spades 101
Machetes 102
Hatchet or axes 103
Sickles and Knives 104
Rakes and shovels 105
Picks 106
Wheel barrow 107
Sprinklers 108
Other hand tools 109
Peeling machine 110
Mills and pestles 111
Sower/drill 112
Crop sprayer 113
114
115
212 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
F701. 
ITEM
CODE
F702. Does your 
household currently 
own a [ITEM]?
Response Codes: 
Yes=1 , 
No=2, DK=8 ,Ref=9 
2,8,9=>>Next item
F703. How 
many 
[ITEM]s 
does your 
household 
currently 
own?
116
117
Other (specify____________) 118
LIVESTOCK
F701 F702 F703
Number
Cattle (traditional)/milk cows (modern)/hybrid cattle (cross breed traditional and modern) 119
120
Bulls 122
Sheep 123
Goats 124
Pigs 125
Rabbits 126
Chickens and other poultry 127
Cochon d’Inde/Amapanya 128
Other Animals (specify)_______ 129
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 213
MODULE G. SHOCKS
SECTION G1. NEGATIVE EVENTS
INTERVIEWER READ OUT LOUD: Households sometimes experience good and bad events. First we would like to ask you about any bad events your household may have experienced in the 
last 12 months.
IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS.
SHOCK COPING CODES for G102
A=Spent Cash Savings
B=Sold Assets
C=Sold livestock
D=Started a new business
E=Removed children from school to work
F=Sent children to live with relative
G=Received Aid
H=Reduced food consumption
I=Borrowed Money
X=Other Specify
W=Nothing
Y=Don’t Know
Z=Refused to answer
G101. Did a [EVENT] occur in this household in the last 12 months?
If No, Skip G102 and go to next item.
G102. How did the household cope with the shock? 
CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY – CODES ABOVE
READ OUT EACH EVENT: Yes No DK Refuse SEE SHOCK COPING CODES ABOVE
1 Death of a resident household member 1 2 8 9
A B C D E F G H I X W Y Z
IF X CIRCLED, Other (specify) 
________________________________________
2
Death of a friend / non-resident family member you depended on for financial 
assistance
1 2 8 9
A B C D E F G H I X W Y Z
IF X CIRCLED, Other (specify) 
________________________________________
3 Serious illness or injury of a household member 1 2 8 9
A B C D E F G H I X W Y Z
IF X CIRCLED, Other (specify) 
________________________________________
4 Widespread death of livestock 1 2 8 9
A B C D E F G H I X W Y Z
IF X CIRCLED, Other (specify) 
________________________________________
5 Disease of livestock 1 2 8 9
A B C D E F G H I X W Y Z
IF X CIRCLED, Other (specify) 
________________________________________
214 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
6 Theft of livestock 1 2 8 9
A B C D E F G H I X W Y Z
IF X CIRCLED, Other (specify) 
________________________________________
7 Major crop failure / loss 1 2 8 9
A B C D E F G H I X W Y Z
IF X CIRCLED, Other (specify) 
________________________________________
8 Job loss of a breadwinner 1 2 8 9
A B C D E F G H I X W Y Z
IF X CIRCLED, Other (specify) 
________________________________________
9 Cut off or decrease in remittances to the household 1 2 8 9
A B C D E F G H I X W Y Z
IF X CIRCLED, Other (specify) 
________________________________________
10 Cut off or decrease in government grants 1 2 8 9
A B C D E F G H I X W Y Z
IF X CIRCLED, Other (specify) 
________________________________________
11 Theft of household property 1 2 8 9
A B C D E F G H I X W Y Z
IF X CIRCLED, Other (specify) 
________________________________________
12 Destruction of household property 1 2 8 9
A B C D E F G H I X W Y Z
IF X CIRCLED, Other (specify) 
________________________________________
13 Inherited outstanding debt from deceased family member 1 2 8 9
A B C D E F G H I X W Y Z
IF X CIRCLED, Other (specify) 
________________________________________
14 Other (specify______________________________________________) 1 2 8 9
A B C D E F G H I X W Y Z
IF X CIRCLED, Other (specify) 
________________________________________
 
 
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 215
SECTION G2. POSITIVE EVENTS
Now we would like to ask you about any good events your household may have experienced IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS
G103 Did a […] occur in this household in the last 12 months? Yes No Don’t Know Refuse
G103.1 New regular job for a household member 1 2 8 9
G103.2 New or increased remittances 1 2 8 9
G103.3 New government grant/support 1 2 8 9
G103.4 Inheritance, large gift, lottery winnings 1 2 8 9
G103.5 Big payment from a firm 1 2 8 9
G103.6 Scholarship / bursary for children or adults in the household 1 2 8 9
G103.7 Other (specify) 1 2 8 9
216 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
MODULE H: ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES, HIV PREVENTION, CARE 
AND SUPPORT
PLEASE RECORD THE LINE NUMBER OF THE RESPONDENT FOR THIS SECTION: 
I am going to read out a list of items and services. Please tell me if you or anyone else in your household has received or accessed any 
of these items or services in the last 6 months.
Yes No 
DK Refuse
Yes No 
DK Refuse
H
10
1
H101.1 HIV test 1 2 8 
9
H101.16 Free school supplies or a 
school uniform
 1 2 8 
9
H101.2 Farmer Field School 1 2 8 
9
H101.17 Birth registration support 1 2 8 
9
H101.3 Free Small Livestock 1 2 8 
9
H101.18 Mosquito nets 1 2 8 
9
H101.4 Free seed 1 2 8 
9
H101.19 Information on child 
protection
 1 2 8 
9
H101.5 Nutritional advice in caring for your 
children
 1 2 8 
9
H101.20 Nutrition messaging for 
pregnant or lactating women
 1 2 8 
9
H101.6 Free food 1 2 8 
9
H101.21 One Stop (GBV center) 1 2 8 
9
H101.7 Information on how to prevent HIV and 
other sexually transmitted infections
 1 2 8 
9
H101.22 Information on sexual and 
reproductive health and rights 
 1 2 8 
9
 1 2 8 
9
 1 2 8 
9
H101.9 Training on Early Childhood 
Development
 1 2 8 
9
H101.24 Information on positive 
masculinity and gender equity
 1 2 8 
9
H101.10 Livelihood training/income generation 1 2 8 
9
H101.25 Umugoroba w’ababyeyi 
(parental evenings)
 1 2 8 
9
H101.11 Community savings/lending group 1 2 8 
9
H101.26 HIV treatment and care
 1 2 8 
9
H101.12 Life skills training 1 2 8 
9
H101.27 Advice on childhood 
immunization
1 2 8 
9
H101.13 Vocational training scholarships 1 2 8 
9
H101.28 Positive parenting 1 2 8 
9
H101.14 Workforce readiness training 1 2 8 
9
H101.29 Growth monitoring for 
children
1 2 8 
9
H101.15 Psychosocial support from a home 
visitor or social worker
 1 2 8 
9
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 217
H102 I have come to the end of my questions. Thank you for participating in this interview! Is there 
anything you would like to add or ask us?
H103 DATE INTERVIEW COMPLETED (dd/mm/20yy) [__ __ /__ __ /2 0 __ __ ]
H104 TIME INTERVIEW COMPLETED (dd/mm/20yy) [_____|_____:_____|____
__]
H105 INTERVIEWER NOTES
218 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table of Contents
MODULE A. HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION SHEET.............................................................................219
MODULE C. INTEGRATED SAVINGS AND LENDING GROUP INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS.....220
SECTION C2: PARTICIPATION IN AN INTEGRATED SAVINGS AND LENDING GROUP... 221
SECTION C3: GENDER ROLES AND DECISION-MAKING POWER.............Error! Bookmark not 
defined.
SECTION C4. ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES, HIV PREVENTION, CARE AND SUPPORT. 227
MEASURE Evaluation: Rwanda ISVP Impact Evaluation TWIYUBAKE, v1
Respondent: Integrated Savings and Lending Group Member
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 219
MODULE A. HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION SHEET 
A001 PROVINCE
A002 DISTRICT
A003 SECTOR
A004 CELL
A005 VILLAGE
A006 HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
A008 LINE NUMBER OF INTEGRATED SAVINGS AND 
LENDING GROUP MEMBER FROM HH ROSTER
220 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
MODULE C. INTEGRATED SAVINGS AND LENDING GROUP INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS
IS THE INTEGRATED SAVINGS AND LENDING GROUP 
MEMBER THE SAME AS A CAREGIVER?
 Yes
 
 No
1 => Fill C101 and 
copy/verify C102 and 
C103 from the 
CAREGIVER QRE. 
THEN Skip to C201
2 =>C101
SECTION C1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
EDUCATION CODES FOR C107 AND C108.
0=Pre-Primary
1=Primary 1
2=Primary 2
3=Primary 3
4= Primary 4
5=Primary 5
6=Primary 6
7=TVET1
8=TVET2
9=TVET3
11= Secondary 1
12= Secondary 2
13= Secondary 3
14= Secondary 4
15= Secondary 5
16= Secondary 6
21=University 1
22=University 2
23=University 3
24=University 4
25=Univ. 5 and above
77=None
88=Don’t Know
I’m going to begin by asking you some basic questions about yourself.
C101
Record sex of respondent Male 
Female
Other _______________
Refuse 
1
2
6
9
C102
IF ISLG MEMBER IS A CAREGIVER, VERIFY 
MONTH/YEAR OF BIRTH FROM CAREGIVER AND 
RECORD HERE
In what month and year were you born?
MONTH
YEAR
C103
IF ISLG MEMBER IS A CAREGIVER, VERIFY AGE FROM 
CAREGIVER AND RECORD HERE
How old were you at your last birthday? AGE
IF AGE IS LESS THAN 16 AND ISLG 
MEMBER IS NOT A CAREGIVER, SKIP 
TO C106
FILTER
IS THE INTEGRATED SAVINGS AND LENDING GROUP 
MEMBER THE SAME AS A CAREGIVER?
YES => SKIP TO C201
NO => CONTINUE
C106 Have you ever attended school? Yes
No
Refused
1
2=>C201
9=> C201
C107 What is the highest class level that you have attended 
in school? SEE EDUCATION CODES ABOVE
MEASURE Evaluation: Rwanda ISVP Impact Evaluation TWIYUBAKE, v1
Respondent: Integrated Savings and Lending Group Member
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 221
C108 What is the highest class level that you have 
completed? SEE EDUCATION CODES ABOVE
-- End of section --
SECTION C2: PARTICIPATION IN AN INTEGRATED SAVINGS AND LENDING GROUP
I have some questions about your and your household’s participation in integrated savings and 
lending groups. To remind you, an Integrated Savings and Lending Group (ISLG) is a community-based 
and member-owned institutions composed a group of people who save together and take small loans 
from those savings. The activities of the group run in cycles of one year, after which the accumulated 
savings and the loan profits are distributed back to members. ISLG integrate financial education services 
for members.
C201 In what month and year did your household first 
join an integrated savings and lending group? __ __ / __ __ __ __ (mm/yyyy)
C202
For how long has your household participated in 
integrated savings and lending groups?
CHECK WITH PREVIOUS ANSWER
Less than one month
1-3 months
Between 3 months and 1 year
More than 1 year
Other, Specify:_________
1
2
3
4
6
C206
How many different integrated savings and lending 
groups have members of your household been a 
member of? 
C207
Has any member of your household ever been an 
official in any integrated savings and lending 
group?
Yes
No
1
2=>C208
A
222 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
C208
What official titles have your household members 
held? 
Probe: Any others?
PROBE WITH RESPONSE CATEGORIES IF NECESSARY.
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
Chairperson
Secretary
Treasurer
Money counter
Other, 
Specify:____________
A
B
C
D
X
C208
A
How many different integrated savings and lending 
groups are members of your household currently a 
member of?
[__][__]
C209 What is/are the name(s) of your household’s current 
integrated savings and lending group (s)?
C209
A
IF TWIYUBAKE GIVEN AS ANSWER TO C209, CIRCLE 
YES. OTHERWISE ASK:
Are you or any member of your household currently a 
member of the Twiyubake integrated savings and 
lending group program? 
YES
NO
1
2
C209
B
IF C209A=YES, ASK THIS ABOUT TWIYUBAKE. IF 
C209A=NO, ASK ABOOUT THEIR MOST RECENT 
GROUP:
In what month and year did any member of your 
household join your current integrated savings and 
lending group?
[__] [__] / [__] [__] [__] [__]
MM/YYYY
C210
IF C209A=YES, ASK THIS ABOUT TWIYUBAKE. IF 
C209A=NO, ASK ABOOUT THEIR MOST RECENT 
GROUP:
What project or organization helped to create your
household’s group?
CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY
DUHAMIC
EPR
YWCA
AEE
CARITAS
FXB
RSSP/LWH
CARE
PPMER Amajyambere mu 
cyaro
CAPMER
Other, Specify:___________
Don’t know
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
X
Y
C211
IF C209A=YES, ASK THIS ABOUT TWIYUBAKE. IF 
C209A=NO, ASK ABOOUT THEIR MOST RECENT 
GROUP:
RWF
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 223
What is the standard savings contribution to your
household’s current integrated savings and lending 
group at every meeting? 
C212
IF C209A=YES, ASK THIS ABOUT TWIYUBAKE. IF 
C209A=NO, ASK ABOOUT THEIR MOST RECENT 
GROUP:
What interest rate does your household’s current 
group charge? 
THIS SHOULD BE A PERCENTAGE.
C213
IF C209A=YES, ASK THIS ABOUT TWIYUBAKE. IF 
C209A=NO, ASK ABOOUT THEIR MOST RECENT 
GROUP:
Have you or any member of your household ever 
borrowed any money from your household’s current 
integrated savings and lending group? 
Yes
No
1
2=>C21
9
C214
The last time you or any member of your household 
borrowed money from your household’s current 
integrated savings and lending group, how much 
money did your household borrow?
RWF
C215 How much was your household supposed to pay back 
(including interest?)
RWF
C216
What did your household do with the money that was borrowed this last time? Anything else?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED. 
Purchased food for eating
Purchased food for selling
Purchased items (not food) to 
sell
Purchased household items: such 
as: TV, radio, refrigerator, mobile 
phone
Paid for medical care
Paid for school fees/materials for 
children
Purchased livestock or poultry
A
B
C
D
E
F
 
G
Purchased seeds for planting
Purchased farm equipment
Purchased business equipment, such as: 
sewing machine
Home improvement: buying new roofing 
sheets, repairing house
Gave it to spouse or other relative
Repaid a debt
Paid funeral expenses
Paid wedding expenses
Other, Specify:_________
H
I
J
 
K
 
L
M
N
O
X
C217
Has your household already repaid this 
loan in full?
Yes
No
1
2
C219 IF C209A=YES, ASK THIS ABOUT TWIYUBAKE. IF 
C209A=NO, ASK ABOOUT THEIR MOST RECENT GROUP:
Yes
No
1
%
224 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Have you or any member of your household ever received 
a share-out from the integrated savings and lending 
group? 
Share-outs are savings distributed to integrated savings 
and lending group members at the end of the integrated 
savings and lending group cycle.
2=>C22
3
C220 Since joining an integrated savings and lending group, how 
many share-outs have you or your household received? 
One
Two
Three (or more)
1
2
3
C221
Thinking about the last time your household received a 
share-out from integrated savings and lending group, how 
much did your household receive? RWF
C222
Thinking about the last time your 
household received a share-out from 
an integrated savings and lending 
group, what did your household do 
with the money?
Anything else?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED.
Purchased food for eating A
Purchased food for selling B
Purchased items (not food) to sell C
Purchased household items: such as: TV, 
radio, refrigerator, mobile phone D
Paid for medical care E
Paid for school fees/materials for children F
Purchased livestock or poultry G
Purchased seeds for planting H
Purchased farm equipment I
Purchased business equipment, such as: 
sewing machine J
Home improvement: buying new roofing 
sheets, repairing house K
Gave it tospouse or other relative L
Repaid a debt M
Paid funeral expenses N
Paid wedding expenses O
Other, Specify:_______________ X
C223 IF C209A=YES, ASK THIS ABOUT 
TWIYUBAKE. IF C209A=NO, ASK 
Yes
No
1
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 225
ABOOUT THEIR MOST RECENT 
GROUP:
Have you or any member of your 
household ever borrowed or received 
money from the integrated savings and 
lending group social fund?
2=>C22
5
C224
The last time you or any household 
member borrowed or received funds 
from the integrated savings and 
lending group social fund, what did 
your household do with this money? 
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED.
Purchased food for eating A
Purchased food for selling B
Purchased items (not food) to sell C
Purchased household items: such as: TV, 
radio, refrigerator, mobile phone D
Paid for medical care E
Paid for school fees/materials for children F
Purchased livestock or poultry G
Purchased seeds for planting H
Purchased farm equipment I
Purchased business equipment, such as: 
sewing machine J
Home improvement: buying new roofing 
sheets, repairing house K
Gave it to my spouse or other relative L
Repay a debt M
Paid funeral expenses N
Paid wedding expenses O
Other, 
Specify:__________________________ X
C225
IF C209A=YES, ASK THIS ABOUT TWIYUBAKE. IF 
C209A=NO, ASK ABOOUT THEIR MOST RECENT 
GROUP:
Have you or any member of your household ever 
felt pressured to contribute money to the 
integrated savings and lending group savings 
when your household needed to spend the 
money on a household item?
Yes
No
1
2
226 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
FILTE
R
IS THE INTEGRATED SAVINGS AND LENDING 
GROUP MEMBER THE SAME AS A CAREGIVER?
YES => CONTINUE
NO => SKIP TO C227
C226
We are interested in whether your participation 
in an integrated savings and lending group has 
affected the amount of time you have to spend 
with your children (including biological or non￾biological). Would you say that your participation 
in an integrated savings and lending group has 
increased, decreased, or not changed the amount 
of time you have to spend with your children?
Increased time with children 1
Decreased time with children 2
About the same 3
C227
IF C209A=YES, ASK THIS ABOUT TWIYUBAKE. IF 
C209A=NO, ASK ABOOUT THEIR MOST RECENT 
GROUP:
How often does your household’s current 
integrated savings and lending group hold 
meetings? 
CIRCLE ONE RESPONSE ONLY.
Weekly
Monthly
No set schedule
Other, Specify:________
1
2
3
6
C228
IF C209A=YES, ASK THIS ABOUT TWIYUBAKE. IF 
C209A=NO, ASK ABOOUT THEIR MOST RECENT 
GROUP:
Did any household member attend the last 
integrated savings and lending group meeting?
Yes
No
1
2
C229
IF C209A=YES, ASK THIS ABOUT TWIYUBAKE. IF 
C209A=NO, ASK ABOOUT THEIR MOST RECENT 
GROUP:
Does your household’s current integrated savings 
and lending group have a constitution? 
Yes
No
Don’t Know
1
2
8
C230
IF C209A=YES, ASK THIS ABOUT TWIYUBAKE. IF 
C209A=NO, ASK ABOOUT THEIR MOST RECENT 
GROUP:
Does your household’s current integrated savings 
and lending group discuss any of the following 
topics during group weekly/monthly meetings?
READ THE OPTIONS AND CIRCLE ALL THAT 
APPLY.
Family planning and/or birth 
spacing
HIV/AIDS
Adolescent sexual and 
reproductive health
Nutrition
A
B
C
D
E
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 227
Hygiene (e.g., safe water, 
handwashing, etc.)
Child protection
Gender-based violence
Positive masculinity and gender 
equity
Malaria prevention/treatment
Livelihood training/income
generation
Workforce readiness training
Life skills training
NONE OF THESE TOPICS
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Y
--END OF SECTION
--END OF SECTION—
SECTION C4. ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES, HIV PREVENTION, CARE AND SUPPORT
C4 
Filter
IS THE INTEGRATED SAVINGS AND LENDING 
GROUP MEMBER THE SAME AS THE 
RESPONDENT FOR SECTION H OF THE 
HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE OR A 
CAREGIVER RESPONDENT?
 Yes
 
 No
1 => C402
2 => C401
I am going to read out a list of items and services. Please tell me if you or anyone else in your household has received or accessed any 
of these items or services in the last 6 months.
Yes No DK 
Refused
Yes No DK Refused
C401
C401.1 HIV test 1 2 8 9 C401.16 Free school supplies or 
a school uniform
 1 2 8 9 
C401.2 Farmer Field School 1 2 8 9 C401.17 Birth registration 
support
 1 2 8 9
C401.3 Free Small Livestock 1 2 8 9 C401.18 Mosquito nets 1 2 8 9
228 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
C401.4 Free seed 1 2 8 9 C401.19 Information on child 
protection
 1 2 8 9
C401.5 Nutritional advice in 
caring for your children
 1 2 8 9 C401.20 Nutrition messaging 
for pregnant or lactating 
women
 1 2 8 9
C401.6 Free food 1 2 8 9 C401.21 One Stop (GBV center) 1 2 8 9
C401.7 Information on how to 
prevent HIV and other sexually 
transmitted infections
 1 2 8 9 C401.22 Information on sexual 
and reproductive health and 
rights 
 1 2 8 9
C401. 1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9
C401.9 Training on Early 
Childhood Development
 1 2 8 9 C401.24 Information on 
positive masculinity and 
gender equity
 1 2 8 9
C401.10 Livelihood 
training/income generation 
 1 2 8 9 C401.25 Umugoroba 
w’ababyeyi (parental evenings)
 1 2 8 9
C401.11 Community 
savings/lending group 
 1 2 8 9 C401.26 HIV treatment and 
care
 1 2 8 9
C401.12 Life skills training 1 2 8 9 C401.27 Advice on childhood 
immunization
 1 2 8 9
C401.13 Vocational training 
scholarships
 1 2 8 9 C401.28 Positive parenting 1 2 8 9
C401.14 Workforce readiness 
training
1 2 8 9
C401.29 Growth monitoring for 
children
1 2 8 9
C401.15 Psychosocial support 
from a home visitor or social 
worker
1 2 8 9
C402. I have come to the end of my questions. Thank you for participating in this interview! Is there 
anything you would like to add or ask us?
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 229
C403 DATE INTERVIEW COMPLETED (dd/mm/20yy) [__ __ /__ __ /2 0 __ __ ]
C404 TIME INTERVIEW COMPLETED (dd/mm/20yy) [_____|_____:_____|______]
C405 INTERVIEWER NOTES
NEXT STEPS
C406
Is current integrated savings and lending 
group respondent the index youth (if 10-
17 years old) according to your control 
sheet?
Yes
No
1
2
1=>Continue with the Youth Survey
2=>Continue with next survey.
230 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Respondent: Main Caregiver
Table of Contents
MODULE A. HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION SHEET.............................................................................231
MODULE C: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON CAREGIVER & HOUSEHOLD.....................232
MODULE D: CAREGIVER INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS ............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
SECTION D1. PARENTAL ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION QUESTIONNAIRE (PARQ) .Error! 
Bookmark not defined.
SECTION D2. HIV/AIDS TEST RESULTS.................................................................................................... 235
SECTION D3. NUTRITION KNOWLEDGE................................................................................................ 235
MODULE E: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONS..........................................................................................................238
SECTION E1. EXPENSES................................................................................................................................... 238
SECTION E2. FOOD SECURITY (FANTA, FTF Hunger Scale)................................................................ 239
SECTION E3. GENDER ROLES AND DECISION-MAKING POWER............................................... 241
SECTION E4. CHILD PROTECTION............................................................................................................. 245
SECTION E5. ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES, HIV PREVENTION, CARE AND SUPPORT 245
MODULE F: CHILDREN QUESTIONS................................................................................................................248
SECTION F1. CHILD HEALTH & PROTECTION.................................................................................... 248
SECTION F2. EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................... 255
SECTION F3. FOOD CONSUMPTION/NUTRITION .............................................................................. 258
SECTION F4. ANTHROPOMETRY................................................................................................................. 264
SECTION F5. CHILD EDUCATION ............................................................................................................... 265
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 231
MODULE A. HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION SHEET
IRB Study Number |_________|
A001 PROVINCE
A002 DISTRICT
A003 SECTOR
A004 CELL
A005 VILLAGE
A006 HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
A008 LINE NUMBER OF CAREGIVER FROM HH 
ROSTER
232 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
MODULE C: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON CAREGIVER & HOUSEHOLD
I’m going to ask you some basic questions about yourself and your household.
EDUCATION CODES FOR C107 and C108.
0=Pre-Primary
1=Primary 1
2=Primary 2
3=Primary 3
4= Primary 4
5=Primary 5
6=Primary 6
7=Primary 7
8=Primary 8
17=TVET1
18=TVET2
19=TVET3
11= Secondary 
1
12= Secondary 
2
13= Secondary 
3
14= Secondary 
4
15= Secondary 5
16= Secondary 6
21=University 1
22=University 2
23=University 3
24=University 4
25=Univ. 5 and 
above
77=None
88=Don’t Know
No. Questions Coding Categories
C101 Record sex of respondent
Male 
Female
Other ___________________________
REFUSED 
1
2
6
9
C102 In what month and year were you born?
MONTH YEAR
C103 How old were you at your last birthday?
IF AGE IS LESS THAN 16, SKIP TO C106
C104
Do you have a national ID?
IF YES, PLEASE FILL ON THE TRACKING 
DOCUMENT
Yes 
No
Refused
1
2
9
C106 Have you ever attended school?
Yes 
No
Refuse
1
2 => 
C109
9 => 
C109
C107
What is the highest class level that you have attended
in school? SEE EDUCATION CODES ABOVE
AG
E
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 233
No. Questions Coding Categories
C108
What is the highest class level that you 
have completed? SEE EDUCATION 
CODES ABOVE
If Code 7 
through 
25 skip to 
C110
C109
Now, I would like you to read this 
sentence to me.
Show card to respondent.
If respondent cannot read whole 
sentence, probe: Can you read part of 
the sentence?
Cannot read at all
Able to read only parts of 
sentence
Able to read whole sentence
No card with required language: 
___________________ 
(language)
Blind/visually impaired
1
2
3
4
5
Refused to read 9
C110
Can you add and subtract numbers? Yes No 
Refused
 1 2 
9
C111 What is your current marital status?
Married 1 => C113
Cohabiting (but not married) 2 => C113
Never been married 3
Divorced or separated 4
Widowed 5
Refused 9
C112
Are you in a relationship with someone you are 
not cohabitating with? (boyfriend/girlfriend)
Yes No Refused
 1 2 9
C113
IF MALE, SKIP TO C116
Are you currently pregnant?
Yes No Don’t Know 
Refuse 
 1 2 8 
9
YES => 
C116
As you know, some people take up jobs for which they are paid in cash or kind. Others sell things, have 
a small business or work on the family farm or in the family business.
C116
In the last 3 months, have you done any of these things 
or any other work?
 Yes No Refused
 1 2 9
1 =>C118
234 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
No. Questions Coding Categories
C117
In the last 12 months, have you done any of these 
things or any other work? 
 1 2 9
2 => D101
9 => D101
C118
Do you usually work throughout the year, or do you 
work seasonally, or only once in a while?
Throughout the year
Seasonally/part of the 
year
Once in a while
1
2
3
C119
Are you paid in cash or kind for this work or are you 
not paid at all?
Cash only
Cash and kind
In kind only
Not paid
Refuse
1
2
3
4
9
C120
What is your 
occupation, that is, 
what kind of work do 
you mainly do?
Probe: Anything else?
CIRCLE ALL 
MENTIONED.
IF MORE THAN ONE 
MENTIONED: What is 
your primary 
occupation?
What is your secondary 
occupation? That is, 
what kind of work do 
you do in addition to 
your main occupation?
Agricultural labourer
Own farm labour
Livestock herding
Fishing
Petty trade
Trader
Mining
Brewing
Handicraft
Domestic help
Carpenter
ENTER LETTER OF PRIMARY 
OCCUAPTION
ENTER LETTER OF 
SECONDARY OCCUPATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Construction 
(bricklayer)
Traditional healer
Mechanic
Mill worker
Seamstress/tailor/clot
hes repair
Hairdresser/barber
Charcoal maker
Charcoal/firewood 
seller
Unemployed
Housewife
Student
Retired
Unable to work due to 
illness/disability
Other, Specify:______
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
1
2
3
4
5
X
--- END OF SECTION ---
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 235
SECTION D2. HIV/AIDS TEST RESULTS
Now I would like to ask you some questions about HIV tests.
D201 I don't want to know the results, but have you ever been tested to see if 
you have the HIV virus?
Yes
No
Refused
1
2 => D205
9 => D205
D202 How many months ago was your most recent HIV test?
Months ago
Two or more years 95
D203
Who influenced you to take your most recent HIV test?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
Spouse/partner
Parent
Other relative
Neighbor/friend
Community health 
worker
Peer educator
Case management 
volunteer
Other: 
______________
Self/nobody
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
X
Y
D204 I don't want to know the results, but did you get the results of the test?
Yes
No
Don’t Remember
Refused
1
2
8
9
D205
Do you know of a place where people can go to get tested for the HIV 
virus?
Yes
No
Refused
1
2
9
D206
Should children age 12-14 be taught about using a condom to avoid getting 
HIV?
Yes
No
Refused
1
2
9
--- END OF SECTION ---
SECTION D3. NUTRITION KNOWLEDGE
Now I would like to ask you some questions about nutrition for children, and pregnant women.
D301
How long should a baby receive 
nothing more than breastmilk (in 
total months)?
From birth to six months
Less than six months
More than six months
1
2
3
8
236 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
[PROBE IF NECESSARY: Until what 
age is it recommended that a 
mother feeds nothing more than 
breastmilk?]
Don’t know
Refuse
9
D302
When a baby or child is sick, should 
he or she be fed the same amount 
of food, less food or more food?
The same amount of food
Less food than usual
More food than usual 
Other:_____________________
Don’t know
Refuse
1
2
3
6
8
9
D304
What should we do to prevent 
undernutrition among infants under 
6 months of age?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
Breastfeed exclusively / give only breastmilk
Breastfeed on-demand/whenever the baby wants
Go the health center/hospital and check that the child is 
growing
Other:______________________
Don’t know
Refuse
A
B
C
X
Y
Z
D305
What should we do to prevent 
undernutrition among children 6-23 
months of age?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
Go to the health center/hospital and check that the child 
is growing
Give more food
Feed frequently
Give them attention during meals (e.g., talk to them, 
make meal times happy times, etc.)
Other:___________________
Don’t know
Refuse
A
B
C
D
X
Y
Z
D306
There are key moments when you 
need to wash your hands to prevent 
germs from reaching food. What 
are these key moments?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
After going to the toilet / latrine
After cleaning the baby’s bottom / changing a baby’s 
nappy
Before preparing / handling food
Before feeding a child / eating
After handling raw food
After handling garbage
Other __________________________________
Don’t know
Refuse
A
B
C
D
E
F
X
Y
Z
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 237
D307
How should a pregnant woman eat 
in comparison with a non-pregnant 
woman to provide good nutrition to 
her baby and help him grow?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
Eat more food (more at each meal or more frequent 
meals)
Eat more protein-rich foods
Eat more iron-rich foods 
Use iodized salt when preparing meals
Other _______________________________
Don’t know
Refuse
A
B
C
D
X
Y
Z
238 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
MODULE E: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONS
SECTION E1. EXPENSES 
Now I have some questions about household expenses.
E10
1
Did your household incur any food-related 
expenses in the last four weeks? 
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2 => E103
8 => E103
9 => E103
E10
2
Was your household able to pay for these 
expenses?
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
E10
3
Thinking about the last time you bought any food 
for eating or cooking, where did the money come 
from? 
DO NOT READ RESPONSES. RECORD ONE 
PRIMARY RESPONSE ONLY.
PROMPT IF NECESSARY: maize meal, sugar, 
cooking oil
Current income (cash)
Savings
Loan
Gift/given money
Sold asset, specify 
_________
Other, specify:
_________
1
2
3
4
5
6
E10
4
Did your household incur any school-related 
expenses in the last 12 months? 
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2=> E106
8=> E106
9=> E106
E10
5
Was your household able to pay for these 
expenses?
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 239
E10
6
Thinking about the last time you had to pay for any 
school-related expenses, where did the money 
come from? 
RECORD ONE PRIMARY RESPONSE ONLY.
PROMPT IF NECESSARY: fees, uniforms, books, 
other materials
Current income (cash)
Savings
Loan
Gift/given money
Sold asset, specify
________
Other, specify: ________
Not Applicable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E10
7
Did your household incur any major unexpected 
household expenses, such a as a house repair or 
urgent medical treatment, in the last 12 months?
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2=> E109
8=> E109
9=> E109
E10
8
Was your household able to pay for these 
expenses?
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
E10
9
Thinking about the last time you had to pay for a 
major unexpected household expense, such as a 
house repair, or urgent medical treatment, where 
did the money come from? 
RECORD ONE PRIMARY RESPONSE ONLY.
Current income (cash)
Savings
Loan
Gift/given money
Sold Asset 
(Specify):______
Other: ______
1
2
3
4
5
6
--- END OF SECTION ---
SECTION E2. FOOD SECURITY (FANTA, FTF Hunger Scale)
Now I have a few questions about food consumption in your household.
E201
In the past 4 weeks, was there ever no 
food to eat of any kind in your house 
because of lack of resources to get 
food?
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2=> 
E203
8=> 
E203
9=> 
E203
240 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
E202
How many times did this happen?
READ OUT RESPONSES (DO NOT READ 
“DON’T KNOW” AND “REFUSE”)
Rarely (1-2 times in past 4 weeks)
Sometimes (3-10 times in past 4 weeks)
Often (more than 10 times in past 4 
weeks)
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
3
8
9
E203
In the past 4 weeks, did you or any 
household member go to sleep at night 
hungry because there was not enough 
food?
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2=> 
E205
8=> 
E205
9=> 
E205
E204
How many times did this happen?
READ OUT RESPONSES (DO NOT READ 
“DON’T KNOW” AND “REFUSE”)
Rarely (1-2 times in past 4 weeks)
Sometimes (3-10 times in past 4 weeks)
Often (more than 10 times in past 4 
weeks)
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
3
8
9
E205
In the past 4 weeks, did you or any 
member of your household go a whole 
day and night without eating anything 
because there was not enough food?
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2=> 
Section 
E3
8=> 
Section 
E3
9=> 
Section 
E3
E206
How many times did this happen?
READ OUT RESPONSES (DO NOT READ 
“DON’T KNOW” AND “REFUSE”)
Rarely (1-2 times in past 4 weeks)
Sometimes (3-10 times in past 4 weeks)
Often (more than 10 times in past 4 
weeks)
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
3
8
9
--- END OF SECTION ---
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 241
SECTION E3. GENDER ROLES AND DECISION-MAKING POWER
Now I have some questions about who makes decisions in your household.
REFER BACK TO C119:
IF RESPONDENT IS PAID IN CASH (C119=1 OR 2) 
PROCEED TO E301.
IF RESPONDENT IS PAID IN 
KIND ONLY, NOT PAID, 
REFUSED OR NOT WORKING 
(C119=3,4, 9 OR C117=2 OR 9) 
SKIP TO FILTER FOR E302. 
E301
Who usually decides how the money that you earn 
will be used: you, your spouse/partner, you and 
your spouse/partner jointly, your parents, you and 
your parents jointly, or you, your parents and 
spouse/partner jointly, or someone else? 
Respondent
Spouse/Partner
Respondent & Spouse/Partner 
jointly
Parents
Respondent & Parents jointly
Respondent, Parents, & 
Spouse/Partner jointly
Other, Specify: 
______________
1
2
3
4
5
6
66
REFER BACK TO C111:
RESPONDENT IS CURRENTLY MARRIED/ 
COHABITATING (C111=1,2) PROCEED TO E302.
COHABITING (C111=1,2)
RESPONDENT IS NOT 
CURRENTLY 
MARRIED/COHABITATING
RESPONDENT CURRENTLY 
MARRIED/ 
(C111=3,4,5,9)
SKIP TO E303. 
E302
Who usually decides how the money that your 
spouse/partner earns will be used: you, your 
spouse/partner, you and your spouse/partner 
jointly, your parents, you and your parents jointly, 
or you, your parents and spouse/partner jointly, or 
someone else? 
Respondent
Spouse/Partner
Respondent & Spouse/Partner 
jointly
Parents
Respondent & Parents jointly
Respondent, Parents, & 
Spouse/Partner jointly
1
2
3
4
5
6
66
242 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Other, Specify: 
______________
Spouse/partner has no 
earnings
77
E303
Who usually makes decisions about health care for 
yourself: you, your spouse/partner, you and your 
spouse/partner jointly, your parents, you and your 
parents jointly, or you, your parents and 
spouse/partner jointly, or someone else?
Respondent
Spouse/Partner
Respondent & Spouse/Partner 
jointly
Parents
Respondent & Parents jointly
Respondent, Parents, & 
Spouse/Partner jointly
Other, Specify: 
______________
1
2
3
4
5
6
66
E304
Who usually makes decisions on your child’s 
healthcare: you, your spouse/partner, you and your 
spouse/partner jointly, your parents, you and your 
parents jointly, or you, your parents and 
spouse/partner jointly, or someone else? 
Respondent
Spouse/Partner
Respondent & Spouse/Partner 
jointly
Parents
Respondent & Parents jointly
Respondent, Parents, & 
Spouse/Partner jointly
Other, Specify: 
______________
1
2
3
4
5
6
66
E304a
Who usually makes decisions about what your child 
eats: you, your spouse/partner, you and your 
spouse/partner jointly, your parents, you and your 
parents jointly, or you, your parents and 
spouse/partner jointly, or someone else? 
Respondent
Spouse/Partner
Respondent & Spouse/Partner 
jointly
Parents
Respondent & Parents jointly
Respondent, Parents, & 
Spouse/Partner jointly
Other, Specify: 
______________
1
2
3
4
5
6
66
E304b
Who usually makes decisions about whether your 
child attends early childhood development services 
(ECD services): you, your spouse/partner, you and 
your spouse/partner jointly, your parents, you and 
Respondent
Spouse/Partner
Respondent & Spouse/Partner 
jointly
1
2
3
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 243
your parents jointly, or you, your parents and 
spouse/partner jointly, or someone else? 
Parents
Respondent & Parents jointly
Respondent, Parents, & 
Spouse/Partner jointly
Caregiver has no children 
under 5
Other, Specify: 
______________
No ECD services available
Don’t know about ECD 
services
4
5
6
7
66
77
88
E305
Who usually makes decisions about making major 
household purchases: you, your spouse/partner, 
you and your spouse/partner jointly, your parents, 
you and your parents jointly, or you, your parents 
and spouse/partner jointly, or someone else? 
Respondent
Spouse/Partner
Respondent & Spouse/Partner 
jointly
Parents
Respondent & Parents jointly
Respondent, Parents, & 
Spouse/Partner jointly
Other, Specify: 
______________
1
2
3
4
5
6
66
E306
Who usually makes decisions about making 
purchases for daily household needs: you, your 
spouse/partner, you and your spouse/partner 
jointly, your parents, you and your parents jointly, 
or you, your parents and spouse/partner jointly, or 
someone else? 
Respondent
Spouse/Partner
Respondent & Spouse/Partner 
jointly
Parents
Respondent & Parents jointly
Respondent, Parents, & 
Spouse/Partner jointly
Other, Specify: 
______________
1
2
3
4
5
6
66
Enumerator: It is important that you carry out the remainder of this module in a private room or private 
location away from other people so that others cannot hear the questions or her responses. If privacy is 
compromised during this module (for example, another family member enters the room), you should 
stop asking questions until privacy is re-established. In addition, if the participant becomes distraught or 
sad during these questions, you should pause and ask her if she is okay. Also ask if she would like to 
continue with the interview, to pause momentarily, skip these questions, or skip to the next section. 
Filter: Only ask of selected female who is married/cohabitating
244 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
RESPONDENT IS SELECTED MARRIED/COHABITATING
FEMALE CAREGIVER
Now I would like to ask you questions about some important aspects of a woman's life. There is some 
risk in the following portion of this study. We will ask you some questions relating to your relationship 
with your husband/partner and any experience of physical violence. It is possible that you may feel sad 
or uncomfortable when talking to us about this topic. If you do feel sad or uncomfortable, you will be 
able to talk to me or to our project staff. You can also end your participation in the interview at any 
time. We will not share your responses with anyone else and nobody else in your household is being 
asked these same questions. However, there is still a risk that your family or your husband/partner 
could find out about the study that they may not agree with your participation in the study. Also, if you 
would like, I can give you contact information for groups that help women when they are having 
difficulties with their partners.
E309
In the last 12 months,(Does/did) your (last) 
husband/partner do any of the following things 
to you?
Yes No DK/Not Sure Refuse 
Partner Away
E309.1 a) Slap you?
 1 2 8 9 
6
E309.2 b) Twist your arm or pull your hair? 1 2 8 9
E309.3
c) Push you, shake you, or throw something at 
you?
 1 2 8 9
E309.4
d) Punch you with his fist or with something 
that could hurt you?
 1 2 8 9
E309.5 e) Kick you, drag you or beat you up? 1 2 8 9
E309.6 f) Try to choke you or burn you on purpose? 1 2 8 9
E309.7
g) Threaten or attack you with a knife, gun, or 
any other weapon?
 1 2 8 9
E309.8
h) Physically force you to have sexual
intercourse with him even when you did not 
want to?
 1 2 8 9
E309.9
i) Physically force you to perform any other 
sexual acts you did not want to?
 1 2 8 9
E309.1
0
j) Force you with threats or in any other way 
to perform sexual acts you did not want to?
 1 2 8 9
--END OF SECTION—
RESPONDENT IS NOT THE 
SELECTED 
MARRIED/COHABITATING 
FEMALE CAREGIVER
E40
1
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 245
SECTION E4. CHILD PROTECTION
I would now like to ask you some questions about your opinions on child discipline.
E401
In the home, do you think that hitting or 
beating a child is an appropriate means of 
discipline or control?
Always Sometimes Rarely Never DK 
Refuse
1 2 3 4 8 
9 
E402
At school, do you think that hitting or 
beating a child is an appropriate means of 
discipline or control ?
1 2 3 4 8 
9 
--- END OF SECTION ---
SECTION E5. ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES, HIV PREVENTION, CARE AND SUPPORT
CARGIVER IS DIFFERENT FROM RESPONDENT CAREGIVER IS THE SAME AS THE 
RESPONDENT TO SECTION
TO SECTION H OF THE HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE H OF THE HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE
E504
I am going to read out a list of items and services. Please tell me if you or anyone else in your household has received or accessed 
any of these items or services in the last 6 months.
Yes No DK 
Refused
Yes No DK 
Refused
E501
E501.1 HIV test 1 2 8 9 E501.15 Psychosocial support 
from a home visitor or social 
worker
 1 2 8 9
E501.2 Farmer Field School 1 2 8 9 E501.16 Free school supplies or a 
school uniform
 1 2 8 9
E501.3 Free Small Livestock 1 2 8 9 E501.17 Birth registration support 1 2 8 9
E501.4 Free seed 1 2 8 9 E501.18 Mosquito nets 1 2 8 9
E501.5 Nutritional advice in caring 
for your children
 1 2 8 9 E501.19 Information on child 
protection
 1 2 8 9
E501.6 Free food 1 2 8 9 E501.20 Nutrition messaging for
pregnant or lactating women
 1 2 8 9
246 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
E501.7 Information on how to 
prevent HIV and other sexually 
transmitted infections
 1 2 8 9 E501.21 One Stop (GBV center) 
 1 2 8 9
 1 2 8 9 E501.22 Information on sexual 
and reproductive health and rights 
 1 2 8 9
E501.9 Training on Early Childhood 
Development
 1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9
E501.10 Livelihood training/income 
generation 
 1 2 8 9 E501.24 Information on positive 
masculinity and gender equity
 1 2 8 9
E501.11 Community 
savings/lending group 
 1 2 8 9 E501.25 Umugoroba w’ababyeyi 
(parental evenings)
E501.12 Life skills training 1 2 8 9 E501.26 HIV treatment and care
 1 2 8 9
E501.13 Vocational training 
scholarships
 1 2 8 9 E501.27 Advice on childhood 
immunization
1 2 8 9
E501.14 Workforce readiness 
training
 1 2 8 9 E501.28 Positive parenting 1 2 8 9
E501.29 Growth monitoring for 
children
1 2 8 9
Now let’s talk about health services. 
E504 E503_1
How long does it take to reach the health 
facility that you usually visit for child 
health?a. Province:_____________________
:
Hours: minutes
PROVIDER COMES TO MY RESIDENCE…..0000 -> E506
DO NOT/HAVE NOT USED SERVICE……7777 →E506
DON’T KNOW………………………………………8888
E505 E503_2
How do you usually get there?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONEDb. District: 
:_____________________
WALK…………………………………………………A
BICYCLE……………………………………………..B
MOTO…………………………..……………………C
BUS…………………………………………………….D
CAR/PRIVATE TAXI………………………………E
OTHER___________________________X
E506
How long does it take to reach the health 
facility that you usually visit for routine child 
growth monitoring and nutritional services?
:
Hours: minutes
PROVIDER COMES TO MY RESIDENCE…..0000 -> E508
DO NOT/HAVE NOT USED SERVICE……7777 →E508
DON’T KNOW………………………………………8888
E507 How do you usually get there? WALK…………………………………………………A
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 247
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
BICYCLE……………………………………………..B
MOTO…………………………..……………………C
BUS…………………………………………………….D
CAR/PRIVATE TAXI………………………………E
OTHER___________________________X
E508 How long does it take to reach the health 
facility that you usually visit for HIV testing? :
Hours: minutes
PROVIDER COMES TO MY RESIDENCE…..0000 -> E510
DO NOT/HAVE NOT USED SERVICE……7777 →E510
DON’T KNOW………………………………………8888
E509
How do you usually get there?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
WALK…………………………………………………A
BICYCLE……………………………………………..B
MOTO…………………………..……………………C
BUS…………………………………………………….D
CAR/PRIVATE TAXI………………………………E
OTHER___________________________X
E510
:
DON’T KNOW………………………………………8888
--- END OF SECTION ---
I have come to the end of my questions about you and your household. I would now like to ask you some 
questions about your children. Let’s start with [INITIALS]. (Start with youngest child then move to the 
next oldest until the caregiver has answered questions about all 0 month – 17 year olds).
248 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
MODULE F: CHILDREN QUESTIONS
SECTION F1. CHILD HEALTH & PROTECTION
ASK QUESTIONS OF ALL CHILDREN FOR WHOM THE CAREGIVER IS THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER. BASED ON THE CHILD’S AGE, ASK
THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN OF QUESTIONS. START WITH THE YOUNGEST CHILD AND END WITH ELDEST CHILD. IF MORE 
THAN ONE CHILD IN THE SAME AGE BRACKET, YOU WILL NEED TO ADD ADDITIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE PAGE AND FILL THE 
APPROPRIATE COLUMN. 
I am now going to ask you a few questions about [insert child’s name].
No. Question Child (0-59 months) Child (5-12 years) Child (13-17 years) SKIP
F101 RECORD / CONFIRM CHILD’S INITALS
F102 CHILD’S LINE NUMBER FROM HOUSEHOLD ROSTER
F103 RECORD / CONFIRM CHILD’S SEX
Male 1 Male 1 Male 1
Female
Other __________________
Refuse
2
6
9
Female
Other ________________
Refuse
2
6
9
Female
Other ____________
Refuse
2
6
9
F104 Was [INITIALS’s] birth registered at the sector 
level?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Yes
No
Don’t know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Yes
No
Don’t know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
F105 Does [INITIALS] have a birth certificate? 
Yes
No
Don’t know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Yes
No
Don’t know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Yes
No
Don’t know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
2,8,9 
=> 
F107
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 249
F106
Could you please show me [INITIALS’S] birth 
certificate? 
Seen/Confirmed 1 Seen/Confirmed 1 Seen/Confirmed 1
Not Seen/Not Confirmed 2 Not Seen/Not Confirmed 2
Not Seen/Not 
Confirmed
2
F107
In what month and year was [INITIALS] born? IF 
BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS AVAILABLE, THEN RECORD 
BIRTHDATE FROM BIRTH CERTIFICATE)
IF UNKNOWN, ASK THE CAREGIVER TO ESTIMATE
 Month Year Month Year Month Year 
 
 
 
 
 
 
F108
Remind me, how old was [INITIALS] at their last 
birthday?
CONFIRM WITH MONTH AND YEAR OF BIRTH IN 
F107 AND ADJUST IF NECESSARY. DO NOT LEAVE 
BLANK. IF UNKNOWN, ASK CAREGIVER TO 
ESTIMATE.
ONLY RECORD MONTHS IF CHILD IS <1 year.
IF CHILD IS 0 MONTHS – 11 MONTHS OLD, ENTER 0 
FOR YEAR AND PUT THE NUMBER OF MONTHS IN 
THE MONTHS FIELD. 
YEARS
MONTHS
YEARS
YEARS
F109
What is your relationship to [INITIALS]?
SEE CODES BELOW
IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS NOT LISTED, USE CODE 66 
AND THEN SPECIFY THE RELATIONSHIP
CODES FOR F109: RELATIONSHIP OF MAIN CAREGIVER TO THE CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD
250 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Now I would like to ask you some questions about [INITIALS’s] health.
No. Question Child (0-59 months) Child (5-12 years) Child (13-17 years) SKIP
F111
Would you say that in 
general [INITIALS’s] health 
is……?
READ OUT RESPONSES
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
1
2
3
4
5
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
1
2
3
4
5
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
1
2
3
4
5
F112
In the last 2 weeks, has 
[INITIALS] been too sick to 
participate in daily 
activities? 
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
F113
Does [INITIALS] have a 
disability that makes it 
difficult for him/her to 
participate in daily 
activities?
Yes 
No
Refuse
1
2
9
Yes 
No
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Yes 
No
Refuse
1
2
9
2,9 => F115
F114
How would you describe 
[INITIALS’s] disability?
Blind or partially blind
Deaf or partially deaf
Has difficulties learning
Physical
1
2
3
4
Blind or partially blind
Deaf or partially deaf
Has difficulties learning
Physical
1
2
3
4
Blind or partially blind
Deaf or partially deaf
Has difficulties learning
Physical
1
2
3
4
01=Biological Mother
02=Biological Father 
03=Step-Mother/ Foster Mother
04=Step-Father/Foster Father
05=Sister
06=Brother
07=Aunt
08=Uncle
09=Grandmother
10=Grandfather
11= Non-Family Member Female
12= Non-Family Member Male 
13=Self 
66=Other, Specify
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 251
Other_____________ 6 Other_____________ 6 Other_____________ 6
F115
I don’t want to know the 
results, but has [INITIALS] 
ever been tested to see if 
he/she has the HIV virus?
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
2,8,9=> F117
F116
I don’t want to know the 
results, but do you know 
the result of [INITIALS’s] 
test?
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
No. Question Child (0-59 months) Child (5-12 years)
Child (13-17 
years)
SKIP
F117
I am going to read out a list of items and services. Please tell me if [child’s INITIALS] has received or accessed any of these items or services in the last 6 months. 
READ OUT SERVICES 
F117.1 (Psychosocial) counseling from a home 
visitor or social worker
Yes No Don’t Know Refuse
1 2 8 9
Yes No Don’t Know Refuse
1 2 8 9
Don’t ask 
13-17 years
F117.2 Health care from a health professional 1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9
F117.3 School fees paid for by organization 1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9
F117.4 Free school supplies or a school uniform 1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9
F117.5 Vitamin A supplement from an organization 1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9
F117.6 Supplemental, emergency feeding 1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9
252 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
F118 Has [INITIALS] had diarrhea in the last 2 weeks? 
 Yes No Don’t Know Refuse
 1 2 8 9
Don’t ask 5-12 years
Don’t ask 13-17 
years
2,8,9=> 
F123
F119
Did you seek advice or treatment for the diarrhea 
from any source?
 
 1 2 8 9
Don’t ask 5-12 years
Don’t ask 13-17 
years
2 =>121
8,9 => 122
F120
Where did you seek advice 
or treatment? 
Anywhere else?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
Public sector
Don’t ask 5-12 years Don’t ask 13-17 years
All who 
answer this 
question 
=> F122
Referral Hospital A
District Hospital B
Health Center C
Health Post D
Outreach E
Community Health Worker F
Other public facility (specify): _______________________ G
Private medical sector
Polyclinic H
Clinic I
Dispensary J
Pharmacy K
Other Private Medical Facility L
(specify): _______________________
Other source
Kiosk M
Traditional practitioner N
Church O
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 253
Friend/Relative P
Other (Specify)______________ X
F120.18 Don’t Know Y
F120.19 Refuse Z
F122
Was [INITIALS] given any of 
the following to drink at 
any time since he/she 
started having the 
diarrhea? Yes No Don’t Know Refuse
Don’t ask 5-12 years Don’t ask 13-17 years
F122.1 A pre-packaged 
ORS (Oral Rehydration 
Solution) liquid?
1 2 8 9
F122.2 A government￾recommended 
homemade fluid?
1 2 8 9
No. Question Child (0-59 months) Child (5-12 years) Child (13-17 years) SKIP
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
F123
Has [INITIALS] been ill with a fever at 
any time in the last 2 weeks?
 Yes No Don’t Know Refuse
1 2 8 9
Don’t ask 
5-12 years
Don’t ask 
13-17 years
2,8,9=> 
F201
F124
Did you seek advice or treatment for 
the fever from any source?
1 2 8 9
Don’t ask
5-12 years
Don’t ask
13-17 years
2 =>
F126
8,9 =>F127
F125
Where did you seek advice or 
treatment? 
Public sector Don’t ask 
5-12 years
Don’t ask 
Referral Hospital A 13-17 years
254 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Anywhere else?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
District Hospital B
All who 
answer, 
skip to F127
Health Center C
Health Post D
Outreach E
Community Health Worker F
Other public facility (specify): 
_______________________
G
Private medical sector
Polyclinic H
Clinic I
Dispensary J
Pharmacy K
Other Private Medical Facility L
(specify): _______________________
Other source
Kiosk M
Traditional practitioner N
Church O
Friend/Relative P
Other (Specify)______________ X
Don’t Know Y
Refuse Z
F127
At any time during the illness, did 
[INITIALS] take any drugs for the 
illness?
 Yes No Don’t Know Refuse
1 2 8 9
Don’t ask 
5-12 years
Don’t ask 
13-17 years
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 255
SECTION F2. EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT
INSTRUCTIONS TO INTERVIEWER/TABLET PROGRAMMER: ONLY ASK THIS SECTION OF 0 
MONTH – 59 MONTH OLDS
No. Question Child (0-59 months)
Chil
d 
(5-12 
years
)
Child 
(13-
17 
years
)
SKI
P
F201
I am interested in learning about the things that [INITIALS] plays with when he/she is at 
home. 
F201
_
1
a) Does [INITIALS] play with: 
homemade toys (such as dolls, 
cars, or other toys made at home)?
 Yes No Don’t 
Know Refuse
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-
17
years
F201
_
2
b) Does [INITIALS] play with: toys 
from a shop or manufactured toys?
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-
17
years
F201
_
3
c) Does [INITIALS] play with: 
household objects (such as bowls 
or pots) or objects found outside 
(such as sticks, rocks, animal shells 
or leaves)?
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-
17
years
F202
Sometimes adults taking care of children 
have to leave the house to go shopping, 
wash clothes, or for other reasons and 
have to leave young children. On how 
many days in the past week was [INITIALS] 
left alone for more than an hour? IF 
NONE, ENTER 0. IF DON’T KNOW, ENTER 
8
NUMBER OF DAYS
Don’t 
ask 
5-12
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-
17
years
F203
In the past 3 days, did you or any household member over 15 
years of age engage in any of the following activities with 
[[INITIALS] :
 Yes 
No Don’t Know Refused
Don’
t ask 
5-12 
years
Don’
t ask 
13-17 
years
256 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
F203
_
1
a) Read books to or 
looked at picture 
books with [INITIALS]?
 1 2 8 
9
Don’
t ask 
5-12 
years
Don’
t ask 
13-17 
years
F203
_
2
b) Told stories to 
[INITIALS]?
 1 2 8 
9
F203
_
3
c) Sang songs to 
[INITIALS] or with 
[INITIALS], including 
lullabies?
 1 2 8 
9
F203
_
4
d) Took [INITIALS] 
outside the home, 
compound, yard or 
enclosure?
 1 2 8 
9
F203
_
5
e) Played with 
[INITIALS]?
 1 2 8 
9
F203
_
6
f) Named, counted, or 
drew things to or with 
[INITIALS]?
 1 2 8 
9
F2
0
4
Check Age of Child (Age Filter)
Child age 0, 1, or 2 year olds (0 to 35 months)  skip to next section (SECTION F3 : FOOD 
CONSUMPTION/NUTRITION).
Child age 36 to 59 months (3 & 4 year olds)  Continue with F205
N
O
.
Question Child (0-59 months)
Child
(5-12 
years
)
Child
(13-17 
years)
SKIP
F2
0
5
Does [INITIALS] attend any 
organized or early childhood 
education or development 
program, such as a private or 
government facility, including 
kindergarten, school center, 
playgroups , or community child 
care? 
Yes No Don’t Know 
Refuse
 1 2 
8 9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
2,8,9
F20
7
F2
0
6
Within the last seven days, 
about how many hours did 
[INITIALS] attend?
NUMBER OF HOURS
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 257
I would like to ask you some questions about the health and development of your child. 
Children do not all develop and learn at the same rate. For example, some walk earlier than 
others. These questions are related to several aspects of your child’s development.
F2
0
7
Can [INITIALS] identify or name 
at least ten letters of the 
alphabet?
Yes No Don’t Know 
Refuse
1 2 8 9
Don’
t ask 
5-12 
years
Don’
t ask 
13-17 
years
F2
0
8
Can [INITIALS] read at least four 
simple, popular words? 1 2 8 9
Don’
t ask 
5-12 
years
Don’
t ask 
13-17 
years
F2
0
9
.
Does [INITIALS] know the name 
and recognize the symbol of all 
numbers from 1 to 10? 1 2 8 9
Don’
t ask 
5-12 
years
Don’
t ask 
13-17 
years
F2
1
0
.
Can [INITIALS] pick up a small 
object with two fingers, like a 
stick or a rock from the ground? 1 2 8 9
Don’
t ask 
5-12 
years
Don’
t ask 
13-17 
years
F2
1
1
.
Is [INITIALS] sometimes too sick 
to play? 1 2 8 9
Don’
t ask 
5-12 
years
Don’
t ask 
13-17 
years
F2
1
2
.
Does [INITIALS] follow simple 
directions on how to do 
something correctly? 1 2 8 9
Don’
t ask 
5-12 
years
Don’
t ask 
13-17 
years
F2
1
3
.
When given something to do, is 
[INITIALS] able to do it 
independently? 1 2 8 9
Don’
t ask 
5-12 
years
Don’
t ask 
13-17 
years
F2
1
4
.
Does [INITIALS] get along well 
with other children? 
1 2 8 9
Don’
t ask 
5-12 
years
Don’
t ask 
13-17 
years
F2
1
5
.
Does [INITIALS] kick, bite, or hit 
other children or adults? 1 2 8 9
Don’
t ask 
5-12 
years
Don’
t ask 
13-17 
years
F2
1
Does [INITIALS] get distracted 
easily? 1 2 8 9 Don’
t ask 
Don’
t ask 
258 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
6
.
5-12 
years
13-17 
years
--- END OF SECTION ---
SECTION F3. FOOD CONSUMPTION/NUTRITION
INSTRUCTIONS TO INTERVIEWER/TABLET PROGRAMMER: ONLY ASK THIS SECTION OF 0 
MONTH – 59 MONTH OLDS.
N
o.
Question
Child (0-59 months)
Child 
(5-12 
years
)
Child 
(13-17 
years)
SKIP
Next I would like to ask you about what [INITIALS] eats and drinks.
F3
0
1
Has [INITIALS] ever been breastfed? Yes No Don’t 
Know Refuse
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
2,8,9 
=> 
F303
F3
0
2
Was [INITIALS] breastfed yesterday 
during the day or at night? 1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
0
3
Sometimes babies are fed breast milk in 
different ways, for example by spoon, 
cup, or bottle. This can happen when 
the mother cannot always be with her 
baby. Sometimes babies are breastfed 
by another woman or given breast milk 
from another woman by spoon, cup, 
bottle, or some other way. This can 
happen if a mother cannot breastfeed 
her own baby.
Did [INITIALS] consume breast milk in 
any of these ways yesterday during the 
day or at night?
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 259
Next I would like to ask you about some liquids that [INITIALS] may have had yesterday 
during the day or at night. I am interested in whether your child had the item I mention even 
if it was combined with other foods. [item from list]?: 
READ THE QUESTIONS BELOW. READ THE LIST OF LIQUIDS ONE BY ONE, STARTING WITH 
“PLAIN WATER”, AND MARK YES OR NO, ACCORDINGLY
N
o.
Question
Child (0-59 months)
Child
(5-12 
years
)
Child
(13-17 
years)
SKIP
F3
0
4
Did [INITIALS] have any plain water?
 Yes No Don’t 
Know Refuse
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
0
5
Did [INITIALS] have any infant formula
(powdered or liquid infant formula)?
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
2,8,9 
=>F307
F3
0
6
How many times yesterday during the 
day or at night did [INITIALS] consume 
any formula? 
IF DON’T KNOW, RECORD ‘88’
TIMES
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
0
7
Did [INITIALS] have any milk such as 
tinned, powdered, or fresh animal 
milk?
 Yes No Don’t 
Know Refuse
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
2,8,9 
=>F309
F3
0
8
How many times yesterday during the 
day or at night did [INITIALS] consume 
any milk? 
IF DON’T KNOW, RECORD ‘88’
TIMES
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
0
9
Did [INITIALS] have any juice or juice 
drinks?
 Yes No Don’t 
Know Refuse
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
1
0
Did [INITIALS] have any clear broth? 1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
Don’t 
ask 
260 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
5-12 
years
13-17 
years
F3
1
1
Did [INITIALS] have any yogurt? 1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
2,8,9 
=>F313
F3
1
2
How many times yesterday during the 
day or at night did [INITIALS] consume 
any yogurt? IF DON’T KNOW, 
RECORD ‘88’, IF REFUSED ‘99’. TIMES
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
1
3
Did [INITIALS] have any thin porridge?
 Yes No Don’t 
Know Refuse
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
1
4
Did [INITIALS] have any other liquids? 1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 261
Please describe everything that [INITIALS] ate yesterday during the day or night, whether at 
home or outside the home.
A) Think about when [INITIALS] first woke up yesterday. Did [INITIALS] eat anything at that 
time?
IF YES: Please tell me everything [INITIALS] ate at that time. PROBE: Anything else? UNTIL 
RESPONDENT SAYS NOTHING ELSE. THEN CONTINUE TO PART B).
IF NO, CONTINUE TO PART B).
B) What did [INITIALS] do after that? Did [INITIALS] eat anything at that time?
IF YES: Please tell me everything [INITIALS] ate at that time. PROBE: Anything else? UNTIL 
RESPONDENT SAYS NOTHING ELSE.
REPEAT QUESTION B) UNTIL THE RESPONDENT SAYS THE CHILD WENT TO SLEEP UNTIL THE
NEXT DAY.
IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS MIXED DISHES (dishes containing more than one ingredient), 
LIKE A RELISH OR PORRIDGE, PROBE:
C) What ingredients were in that [mixed dish]? PROBE: Anything else? UNTIL RESPONDENT 
SAYS NOTHING ELSE 
AS THE RESPONDENT RECALLS FOODS, MARK RESPONSE BOX NEXT TO THE FOOD GROUP. IF 
THE FOOD IS NOT LISTED IN ANY OF THE FOOD GROUPS BELOW, ENTER THE FOOD IN THE 
BOX LABELED ‘OTHER FOODS.’ IF FOODS ARE USED IN SMALL AMOUNTS FOR SEASONING OR 
AS A CONDIMENT, INCLUDE THEM UNDER THE CONDIMENTS FOOD GROUP.
ONCE THE RESPONDENT FINISHES RECALLING FOODS EATEN, READ EACH FOOD GROUP 
WHERE ‘1’ WAS NOT ENTERED IN THE RESPONSE BOX, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTION AND 
ENTER ‘1’ IF RESPONDENT SAYS YES, ‘2’ IF NO, AND ‘8’ IF DON’T KNOW:
Yesterday, during the day or night, did [INITIALS] drink/eat any [food group items]?
N
o.
Question
Child (0-59 months)
Child
(5-12 
years
)
Child
(13-17 
years)
SKIP
F3
1
5
Any [BRAND NAME OF COMMERCIALLY 
FORTIFIED BABY FOOD, E.G.,
Cerelac]? 
Yes No Don’t 
Know Refuse
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
1
6
Food made from grains, such as bread, 
rice, noodles, porridge, or [Bread, scone, 
maize meal, maize flour, millet, rice, 
sorghum, or any other food made from 
grains?
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
262 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
F3
1
7
Pumpkin, carrots, squash, orange or 
yellow sweet potatoes or [other local 
yellow/orange foods]?
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
1
8
White potatoes, white yams, manioc, 
cassava [Cocoyams, irish potatoes, white 
sweet potatoes, white yams, cassava, or 
other local roots or tubers?]
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
1
9
Any dark green leafy vegetables such as 
[amaranth, pumpkin leaves, Chinese 
cabbage, greens, kale, cassava leaves, or 
sweet potato leaves that are fresh?]
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
2
0
Ripe mangoes, ripe papayas or guava
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
2
1
Any other fruits or vegetables
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
2
2
Any foods made from beans, peas, 
lentils, nuts, or seeds [groundnuts, soy, 
pigeon peas, cow peas]
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
2
4
Liver, kidney, heart, or other organ 
meats 1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
2
5
Any meat, such as beef, pork, lamb, goat, 
chicken, or duck 1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
2
6
Eggs
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 263
F3
2
7
Fresh or dried fish, shellfish, or seafood 
[crabs] 1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
2
8
Cheese, yogurt, or other milk products
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
2
9
Any sugary foods such as chocolates, 
sweets, candies, pastries, cakes, or 
biscuits
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
3
0
Condiments for flavor, such as chilies, 
spices, herbs, or fish powder 1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
3
1
Grubs, snails, or insects
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
3
2
Any oil, fats, or butter, or foods made 
with any of these 1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17
years
F3
3
3
Other Foods <list here> _________________
___________
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
Check categories F315-F333:
If all ‘No’ >> F334
If at least one ‘Yes’ or all ‘Don’t Know’ >> 
F335
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F3
3
4
Did [INITIALS] eat any solid, semi-solid, 
or soft foods yesterday during the day or 
at night?
IF ‘YES’ PROBE: What kind of solid, semi￾solid, or soft foods did [INITIALS] eat?
Yes 1 >> Probe 
what eaten and 
 fill in yes 
for appropriate 
 response 
in questions 
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
264 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
 F315-
F334
No 2 >> End 
Module
F3
3
5
How many times did [INITIALS] eat solid, 
semi-solid, or soft foods other than 
liquids yesterday during the day or at 
night?
RECORD ‘88’ IF DON’T KNOW
TIMES
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
--- END OF SECTION ---
SECTION F4. ANTHROPOMETRY
INSTRUCTIONS TO INTERVIEWER/TABLET PROGRAMMER: ONLY ASK THIS SECTION OF 0 
MONTH – 59 MONTH OLDS.
N
o.
Question
Child (0-59 months)
Child 
(5-12 
years
)
Child 
(13-17 
years)
SKIP
F4
0
1
Did a health worker or community 
member visit your home and 
measure [child’s INITIALS] arm 
during the last 12 months? 
Yes No Don’t Know 
Refuse
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
2,8,9 -
=>F403
F4
0
2
How many times was [child’s 
INITIALS] upper arm measured? Number of times 
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F4
0
3
Did a health worker or community 
member visit your home and 
encourage you to take child to the 
health center to measure growth 
during the last 12 months?
Yes No Don’t Know 
Refuse
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 265
F4
0
4
Did you or someone else take child 
to the health center to measure 
growth during the last 12 months?
Yes No Don’t Know 
Refuse
1 2 8 
9
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
2,8,9=>
F406
F4
0
5
How many times was child taken to 
health center for growth monitoring 
in past 12 months?
Number of times
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
F4
0
6
We are almost finished! May I 
measure your child’s arm?
FOR 0-59 MONTH OLDS, 
MEASURE MID-UPPER ARM 
CIRCUMFERENCE. DOCUMENT 
MEASUREMENTS. 
.
CM
Don’t 
ask 
5-12 
years
Don’t 
ask 
13-17 
years
--- END OF SECTION ---
SECTION F5. CHILD EDUCATION 
ONLY ASK THIS SECTION FOR CHILDREN WHO ARE AT LEAST 5 YEARS OLD.
CLASS LEVEL CODES FOR F505, F509, and F510. 
0=Pre-Primary
1=Primary 1
2=Primary 2
3=Primary 3
4= Primary 4
5=Primary 5
6=Primary 6
17=TVET1
18=TVET2
19=TVET3
11= Secondary 
1
12= Secondary 
2
13= Secondary 
3
14= Secondary 
4
15= Secondary 5
16= Secondary 6
21=University 1
22=University 2
23=University 3
24=University 4
25=Univ. 5 and 
above
77=None
88=Don’t Know
N
o.
Question
Child
(0-59 
months
)
Child (5-12 years) Child (13-17 years) SKIP
I now have some questions for you about [INITIALS’s] schooling.
266 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
F5
0
1
Is [INITIALS] currently 
enrolled in school?
Don’t 
ask 0-59 
months
 Yes No Don’t 
Know Refuse
1 2 8 
9
 Yes No 
Don’t Know 
Refuse
1 2 8 
9
If 
No: 
F506
F5
0
2
Is [INITIALS’s} school 
currently in session?
Don’t 
ask 0-59 
months
1 2 8 
9
1 2 8 
9
F5
0
3
During the last school week 
(or last school week when 
school was in session (not a 
testing week) in the current 
term), did [INITIALS] miss 
any school days for any 
reason?
Don’t 
ask 0-59 
months
1 2 8 
9
1 2 8 
9
If 
No, 
DK,R
F: 
F505
F5
0
4
Why did [INITIALS] miss 
school days during the last 
school week (or last school 
week when school was in 
session (not a testing week) 
in the current term)?
DO NOT READ RESPONSES. 
CIRCLE ONE PRIMARY 
RESPONSE.
Don’t 
ask 0-59 
months
No money for 
school fees, 
materials, 
transport
1 No money for 
school fees, 
materials, 
transport
1
Child is too sick to 
attend school 
2 Child is too sick to 
attend school 
2
School is too far 
away / no school 
near the home
3 School is too far 
away / no school 
near the home
3
Child has to work 
to help family 
4 Child has to work 
to help family 
4
Child needs to 
care for sick 
household 
members
5 Child needs to 
care for sick 
household 
members
5
Child does not like 
school
6 Child does not like 
school
6
Classes were 
cancelled 
7 Classes were 
cancelled 
7
Other: 
______________
66 Other: 
______________
6
6
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 267
F5
0
5
In what class level is 
[INITIALS] currently 
enrolled?SEE CLASS LEVEL 
CODES ABOVE.
Don’t 
ask 0-59 
months
AllF5
08
N
o.
Question
Child
(0-59 
months
)
Child (5-12 years) Child (13-17 years) SKIP
F5
06
Why is [INITIALS] not 
enrolled in school during 
the current term? 
DO NOT READ RESPONSES. 
CIRCLE ONE PRIMARY 
RESPONSE. 
Don’t 
ask 0-59 
months
No money for school 
fees, materials, 
transport
1 No money for 
school fees, 
materials, 
transport
1
Child is too sick to 
attend school 
2 Child is too sick 
to attend school 
2
School is too far 
away / no school 
near the home
3 School is too far 
away / no school 
near the home
3
Child has to work to 
help family 
4 Child has to work 
to help family 
4
Child needs to care 
for sick household 
members
5 Child needs to 
care for sick 
household 
members
5
Child does not like 
school
6 Child does not 
like school
6
Classes were 
cancelled 
7 Classes were 
cancelled 
7
Child is/was too 
young to attend 
school
8
Other: 
______________
6
6
Other: 
______________
6
6
F5
07
Has [INITIALS] ever 
attended school? 
Don’t 
ask 0-59 
months
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
1
2
8
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
1
2
8
2,8,9 
=>F5
13
268 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Refuse 9 Refuse 9
F5
08
Was [INITIALS] enrolled in 
school during the previous 
school year (2016)? 
Don’t 
ask 0-59 
months
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
2,8,9 
=>F5
12
F5
09
What class level was 
[INITIALS] enrolled in during 
the previous school year
(2015)? SEE CLASS LEVEL 
CODES ABOVE.
Don’t 
ask 0-59 
months
F5
10
During the last school week 
(or last school week when 
school was in session (not a 
testing week) in the 
previous school term 
(2016), did [INITIALS] miss 
any school days for any 
reason?
Don’t 
ask 0-59 
months
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
2,8,9 
=>F5
12
F5
11
Why did [INITIALS] miss 
school days during the last 
school week (or last school 
week when school was in 
session (not a testing week) 
in the previous school term 
(2016))?
DO NOT READ RESPONSES. 
CIRCLE ONE PRIMARY 
RESPONSE.
Don’t 
ask 0-59 
months
No money for school 
fees, materials, 
transport
1 No money for 
school fees, 
materials, 
transport
1
Child is too sick to 
attend school 
2 Child is too sick 
to attend school 
2
School is too far 
away / no school 
near the home
3 School is too far 
away / no school 
near the home
3
Child has to work to 
help family 
4 Child has to work 
to help family 
4
Child needs to care 
for sick household 
members
5 Child needs to 
care for sick 
household 
members
5
Child does not like 
school
6 Child does not 
like school
6
Classes were 
cancelled 
7 Classes were 
cancelled 
7
Other: 
______________
6
6
Other: 
______________
6
6
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 269
F5
12
What is the highest class 
level that [INITIALS] has 
completed? SEE CLASS 
LEVEL CODES ABOVE.
Don’t 
ask 0-59 
months
F5
11
3
CHECK THE CHILD’S AGE IN 
F108. IF AGED 5-9, SKIP TO 
F511. IF AGED 10-17, ASK:
Has [INITIALS] received a 
scholarship for Technical 
and Vocational Education 
and Training (TVET)?
Don’t 
ask 0-59 
months
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
F514 I have come to the end of my questions. Thank you for participating in this interview! Is 
there anything you would like to add or ask us?
F515 DATE INTERVIEW COMPLETED (dd/mm/20yy) [__ __ /__ __ /2 0 __ __ 
]
F516 TIME INTERVIEW COMPLETED (dd/mm/20yy) [_____|_____:_____|___
___]
F517 INTERVIEWER NOTES
--END OF SECTION –
NEXT STEPS
F518
Is current Caregiver respondent the 
ISLG respondent according to your 
control sheet?
Yes
No
1
2
Continue with ISLG Questionnaire 
for Caregiver
End interview with Caregiver and 
begin next survey 
270 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
Table of Contents
MODULE A. HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION SHEET.............................................................................271
MODULE C. BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................................................................................271
MODULE D. INDIVIDUAL YOUTH SURVEY (10-17 years).......................................................................................273
SECTION D1. CHORES & WORK............................................................................................................................. 273
SECTION D2. CHILD EDUCATION .......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
SECTION D3. HEALTH, SUPPORT AND PROTECTION........................................................................................ 276
SECTION D4. HIV/AIDS KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES & SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.................................................... 276
SECTION D5. GENDER NORMS.............................................................................................................................. 283
SECTION D6. ACCESS TO HEATH SERVICES, HIV PREVENTION, CARE & SUPPORT................................... 285
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 271
MODULE A. HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION SHEET 
IRB Study Number |_________|
A001 PROVINCE
A002 DISTRICT
A003 SECTOR
A004 CELL
A005 VILLAGE
A006 HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
A008 LINE NUMBER OF YOUTH FROM HH ROSTER
MODULE C. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Let’s start out by you telling me a little about yourself.
No. Questions Coding Categories SKIP
C101 Record / Confirm Child’s Sex
Male
Female
Other 
____________
(SPECIFY)
REFUSED
1
2
6
9
C102
IF THE YOUTH IS THE SAME AS A 
CAREGIVER AND/OR ISLG MEMBER, 
VERIFY MONTH AND YEAR OF BIRTH 
AND RECORD DATA HERE
In what month and year were you 
born? (I IF BIRTH CERTIFICATE WAS 
MONTH
YEAR
272 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
SEEN DURING CAREGIVER SURVEY, 
RECORD MONTH AND YEAR FROM 
CAREGIVER SURVEY F107 for youth 
10-17). IF UNKNOWN, ASK YOUTH 
TO ESTIMATE
C103
Record / Confirm Youth’s Age- IF 
THE YOUTH IS THE SAME AS A 
CAREGIVER AND/OR ISLG MEMBER, 
VERIFY AGE AND RECORD DATA 
HERE
Remind me, how old were you at 
your last birthday?
CONFIRM WITH MONTH AND YEAR 
BORN IN C102 AND ADJUST IF 
NECESSARY. DO NOT LEAVE BLANK. 
IF UNKNOWN, ASK YOUTH TO 
ESTIMATE
AGE
A PRIMARY CAREGIVER IS DEFINED AS A PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 
FEEDING, CLOTHING, AND CARE FOR A CHILD. IT SHOULD NOT BE THE PERSON
WHO SOLELY PROVIDES FINANCIAL SUPPORT, UNLESS THAT PERSON IS ALSO THE 
ONE RESPONSIBLE AS NOTED HERE. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE THE MOTHER OR 
FATHER OR HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD.
C104
Who is your primary caregiver? 
DO NO READ RESPONSES. 
RECORD ONE PRIMARY 
RESPONSE ONLY. 
Mother (biological)
Father (biological)
Step-mother and/or foster mother
Step-father and/or foster father
Sister
Brother
Aunt
Uncle
Grandmother
Grandfather
Non-family member (female)
Non-family member (male)
No one/self
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 273
Other: __________________ 66
--- END OF SECTION ---
MODULE D. INDIVIDUAL YOUTH SURVEY (10-17 years)
SECTION D1. CHORES & WORK
No. Questions Coding Categories SKIP
D101
Do you sometimes do 
household or farm chores 
for your own family, or 
care for a member of 
your household?
Yes 
No
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
8
9
2=>D104
8=>D104
9=>D104
D102
What household or farm 
chores do you usually do 
for your family? Anything 
else? 
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
Prepare food
Fetch water
Clean house/toilets
Wash clothes, blankets
Take care of children
Take care of adult household 
members
A
B
C
D
E
F
Plant/tend /harvest 
crops
Feed, care for 
animals
Other_____________
__
Don’t Know
Refuse
G
H
X
Y
Z
D103
About how much time do 
you spend per day doing 
household or farm chores 
for your family?
Less than 1 hour
1-2 hours
3-4 hours
More than 4 hours / most of the 
day
It depends / it is different 
everyday
1
2
3
4
5
D104
(Apart from these 
chores,) do you 
sometimes do other work 
outside your home?
Yes 
No
1
2 2=> D109
274 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
No. Questions Coding Categories SKIP
D105
What kinds of other work 
do you sometimes do 
(that is not a household 
or farm chore for your 
own family)? Anything 
else?
PROBE WITH RESPONSE 
CATEGORIES IF 
NECESSARY.
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED.
Sell/hawk goods while walking
Sell food at market
Household chores for other
families
Farm chores for other families
Help out in shop
Construction
Sewing
Mechanic
Clerk, Delivery, Administrative
Agricultural labourer
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Livestock herding
Own farm labour
Petty trade (Small 
shop)
Trader (Buy/sell in 
large quantities, sell 
to petty traders)
Mining
Firewood/charcoal
Brewing 
Handicraft
Fishing
Other: __________
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
X
No. Questions Coding Categories SKIP
D106
How often do you do other 
work (that is not 
household/farm chores for your 
own family)? Would you say….?
READ RESPONSE CATEGORIES
Every day / most days 1 1=>D107
All others: D108
Several times a week 2
Once a week 3
Once in a while 4
D107
About how much time do you 
spend per day doing this work?
Less than 1 hour
1-2 hours
3-4 hours
More than 4 hours
It depends / it is different 
everyday
1
2
3
4
5
D108
Have you ever received money 
for any of the work that you 
do? 
Yes
No
1
2
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 275
No. Questions Coding Categories SKIP
D109
What [else] do you do to get 
money?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
IF WORK MENTIONED, RETURN 
TO D105-D109
Nothing
Begging
Other: 
_________________________
_
Y
A
X
Filter
CHECK ANSWERS TO D108 AND D109:
RESPONDENT GETS MONEY SOMEHOW RESPONDENT DOES NOT GET MONEY
(D108=1 OR D109=A,X) (D108=2 AND D109=Y)
D111
D110
What do you do with the money 
you get?
Anything else?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
Give to parents / guardians
Pay for my school expenses
Pay for school expenses of others
Buy food for myself
Buy alcohol
Buy other things for myself
Save it
Other: 
__________________________
Don’t Know 
Refuse
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
X
Y
Z
D111
In the last 6 months, have you 
begun new paid work outside 
the home? This may include 
self-employment.
Yes 
No
Refuse
1
2 => D201
9=> D201
D112
Is this job an improvement over 
your previous job? 
IMPROVEMMENT IS BASED ON 
THE PARTICIPANT’S 
PERCEPTION
Yes 
No
Did not have job previously
Don’t Know
Refuse
1
2
3
8
9
--- END OF SECTION ---
276 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
SECTION D3. HEALTH, SUPPORT AND PROTECTION
Enumerator: It is important that you carry out the remainder of this module in a private room or private 
location away from other people so that others cannot hear the questions or the youth’s responses. If 
privacy is compromised during this module (for example, another family member enters the room), you 
should stop asking questions until privacy is re-established. In addition, if the participant becomes 
distraught or sad during these questions, you should pause and ask he/she if he/she is okay. Also ask if 
he/she would like to continue with the interview, to pause momentarily, skip these questions, or skip to 
the next section. 
Now I have a few questions about your health and wellbeing. I’m going to ask you a few questions about 
people in your life. Please respond yes or no. We are not asking for names of people.
No. Question Coding 
Categor
y
D301
Do you have someone in your life to turn to for suggestions about how to deal 
with a personal problem?
Yes 
No
1 2
D302 Do you have someone in your life to help with daily chores if you were sick? 1 2
D303 Do you have someone in your life that shows you love and affection? 1 2
D304 Do you have someone in your life to do something enjoyable with? 1 2
--- END OF SECTION ---
SECTION D4. HIV/AIDS KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES & SEXUAL BEHAVIOR 
We are nearly done. I have a few short questions on a disease called HIV/AIDS.
No. Question Coding Categories
D401
Has anyone ever talked to you or taught you about how 
children grow and develop?
PROMPT: HOW CHILDREN’S BODIES CHANGE OVER 
TIME (PUBERTY CHANGES) 
Yes
No
1
2=>D403
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 277
D402
Who talked to you about 
how children grow and 
develop? Anyone else?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
Mother(biological or 
foster)
Father (biological or 
foster)
Grandparent
Aunt
Uncle
Sister
A
B
C
D
E
F
Brother
Friend
Neighbor 
Teacher
Other: _____
Don’t Know
Refuse 
G
H
I
J
X
Y
Z
D403 Has anyone ever talked to you or taught you about sex or 
sexual behavior?
Yes
No
1
2=>D405
D404
Who talked to you about sex 
or sexual behavior?
Anyone else?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
Mother(biological or 
foster)
Father (biological or 
foster)
Grandparent
Aunt
Uncle
Sister
A
B
C
D
E
F
Brother
Friend
Neighbor
Teacher
Other: ____
Don’t Know
Refuse
G
H
I
J
X
Y
Z
D405 Have you ever heard of an illness called HIV or AIDS?
Yes
No
1
2 => D419
D406 Has anyone ever talked to you or taught you about HIV
or AIDS?
Yes
No
1
2 => D408
D407
Who talked to you about HIV 
or AIDS? Anyone else?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
Mother(biological or 
foster)
Father (biological or 
foster)
Grandparent
Aunt
Uncle
Sister
A
B
C
D
E
F
Brother 
Friend
Neighbor
Teacher
Other: ____
Don’t Know
Refuse
G
H
I
J
X
Y
Z
D408
HIV is the virus that leads to AIDS. Can people reduce 
their chances of getting the HIV by having just one 
uninfected sex partner who has no other sex partners?
 Yes No DK/Not Sure 
Refuse
 1 2 8 
9
278 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
D409
Can people reduce their chance of getting HIV by using a 
condom every time they have sex?
 1 2 8 
9
D410 Is it possible for a healthy-looking person to have HIV?
 1 2 8 
9
D411 Can people get HIV from mosquito bites? 1 2 8 
9
D412
Can people get the HIV virus by sharing food with 
someone who has HIV?
 1 2 8 
9
D413 Can HIV be transmitted from a mother to her baby:
Yes No DK/Not Sure 
Refuse
D413.
1
a) During pregnancy?
 1 2 8 
9
D413.
2
b) During delivery?
 1 2 8 
9
D413.
3
c) By breastfeeding?
 1 2 8 
9
I have a few more questions about HIV. If you don’t want to answer, that is all right.
D414
I don’t want to know the results, but have you ever been 
tested to see if you have HIV?
Yes
No
DK/Not Sure
Refuse
1 
2 
8 
9
If 2,8,9 
=>D418
D415 How many months ago was your most recent HIV test?
Months ago
Two or more years 95
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 279
D416
Who influenced you to take your most recent HIV test?
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED
Spouse/partner
Parent
Other relative
Neighbor/friend
Community health 
worker
Peer educator
Case management 
volunteer
Other: 
______________
Self/nobody
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
X
Y
D417
I don’t want to know the results but did you get the 
results of your test?
 Yes
No
DK/Not Sure
Refuse
1 
2 
8 
9
D418
Do you know of a place where people can go to get an
HIV test?
 1 2 8 
9
My next few questions relate to sex. These questions may be awkward to answer. If you do not wish to 
answer, you do not have too. Please just say PASS. If you do choose to answer, please be as honest as 
you can. The information you provide will help us to improve our programs to meet the needs of 
children like you. Everything that you tell me will be held strictly confidential.
D419
How old were you when you had sexual 
intercourse for the very first time?
For the purposes of this survey, ‘sexual 
intercourse’ is when a male puts his penis 
inside of a female’s vagina or inside of 
someone’s anus.
IF RESPONDENT CANNOT RECALL, ASK THEM 
TO ESTIMATE.
 
NEVER HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE…00 
->D436
Refused..99 → D424
D420
When was the last time you had sexual 
intercourse?
DAYS AGO……….[__][__]
WEEKS AGO……..[__][__]
MONTHS AGO…………[__][__]
YEARS AGO…………[__][__]→D422
AGE
280 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
IF LESS THAN 12 MONTHS, ANSWER 
MUST BE RECORDED IN DAYS, WEEKS 
OR MONTHS. 
IF 12 MONTHS (ONE YEAR) OR MORE, 
ANSWER MUST BE RECORDED IN 
YEARS.
REFUSED…999→D422
D421
In total, with how many different people have 
you had sexual intercourse in the last 12 
months? 
IF NON-NUMERIC ANSWER, . . .
PROBE TO GET AN ESTIMATE.
IF NUMBER OF PARTNERS IS DON'T KNOW . . 
.88
95 OR MORE, WRITE '95'.
IF REFUSED, RECORD 99.
D422
The last time you had sexual intercourse, was 
a condom used?
Yes No DK/Not Sure Refuse 
 1 2 8 9
D423
What was your relationship to this person 
with whom you had sexual intercourse?
If “BOYFRIEND”/”GIRLFRIEND”:
Were you living together as if married?
If yes, choose “2” and if no, choose “3”
HUSBAND/WIFE…………………………………. . . . . . . . 
. . 1 
LIVE-IN PARTNER . 
……………………………………………. . 2 
BOYFRIEND/GIRLFRIEND NOT living with 
ReSPONDENT 
……………………………………………………….3
Casual ACQUAINTANCE . 
………………………………….. . 4
PROSTITUTE . ……………………………………………... . . 
. . 5
OTHER 
___________________________________ 6 
(SPECIFY)
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT PREGNANCIES AND BIRTHS OF CHILDREN WHO ARE 
BIOLOGICALLY RELATED TO THE RESPONDENT. THE FIRST STEP IS TO DETERMINE IF YOU HAVE FILLED A 
CAREGIVER QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THIS RESPONDENT. IF YOU HAVE FILLED A CAREGIVER 
NUMBER OF 
SEXUAL PARTNERS
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 281
QUESTIONNAIRE, THEN YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK THE ANSWERS IN QUESTION F110 FOR ALL 
CHILDREN FOR WHOM THE RESPONDENT IS THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER TO SEE IF THE RESPONDENT IS 
THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER/FATHER TO ANY CHLD. THEN FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS LISTED.
D424
FEMALE, OTHER, REFUSED C101 & NO 
CAREGIVER SURVEY OR FEMALE, OTHER, 
REFUSED C101 & CAREGIVER SURVEY WITH 
NO CHILDREN THAT HAVE F110=01
FEMALE, OTHER, REFUSED C101 & CAREGIVER 
SURVEY WITH AT LEAST ONE CHILD THAT HAS 
F110=01 => D426
MALE & CAREGIVER SURVEY WITH AT LEAST 
ONE CHILD THAT HAS F110=02 => D431
MALE & NO CAREGIVER SURVEY OR MALE & 
CAREGIVER SURVEY WITH NO CHILDREN THAT 
HAVE F110=02 => D430
D425 Have you ever been pregnant?
Yes No Don’t Know Refuse 
1 2 8 9
If 2=> D432; If 8,9 => D428
D426
How old were you the first time you became 
pregnant? 
IF DON’T KNOW, RECORD 88.
IF REFUSED, RECORD 99.
D427
FEMALE, OTHER, REFUSED C101 & NO 
CAREGIVER SURVEY OR FEMALE, OTHER, 
REFUSED C101 & CAREGIVER SURVEY WITH 
NO CHILDREN THAT HAVE F110=01
FEMALE, OTHER, REFUSED C101 & CAREGIVER 
SURVEY WITH AT LEAST ONE CHILD WITH 
F110=01=> D429
D428 Have you ever given birth?
Yes No Refuse 
 1 2 9
If 1 => D429
If 2,8,9=>D432
D429 How old were you when you first gave birth?
All skip to D432
AGE
AGE
282 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
D430
Have you ever fathered any children with any 
woman?
Yes No Don’t Know Refuse 
 1 2 8 9
If 2,8,9 => D432
D431
How old were you when your (first) child was 
born?
D432
FEMALE, OTHER, REFUSED C101 & NO
CAREGIVER SURVEY 
MALE OR 
FEMALE, OTHER, REFUSED C101 & CAREGIVER 
SURVEY 
 D436 
D433 Are you currently pregnant?
Yes No Don’t Know 
Refuse 
1 2 8 9
D436
FOR THOSE YOUTH WHO HAVE EITHER A 
CAREGIVER OR ISLG MEMBER QRE, VERIFY 
CURRENT MARITAL STATUS AND RECORD 
HERE
What is your current marital status?
Married
Cohabiting (but not married)
Never been married
Divorced or separated
Widowed
Refused
1
2 
=>D438
3
=>D439
4
5
9
=>D439
D437
How old were you when you first got married? 
D438
How old were you when you first started 
cohabitating?
D439
Do you know of a place where a person can 
get condoms?
Yes No DK/Not Sure Refuse 
 1 2 8 9
If 2,8,9 => D501
AGE
AGE
AGE
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 283
D440
Where is that? 
Any other place? 
PROBE to identify 
each type of 
source.
CIRCLE ALL 
MENTIONED 
Public sector
Referral Hospital
District Hospital
Health Center
Health Post
Outreach 
Community Health 
Worker
Other public facility, 
specify_____
Private medical sector
Polyclinic
Clinic
Dispensary
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Pharmacy
Family Planning Clinic
Other Private Medical 
Facility, specify__________
Other source
Kiosk
Traditional birth attendant
Friend/Relative
Church
Other, specify ______
Refuse
K
L
M
 N
 O
 P
 Q
 X
 Z
--- END OF SECTION ---
SECTION D5. GENDER NORMS
Interviewer script: We would now like to ask you some questions about 
relationships between men and women. For each statement, please tell us 
if you agree a lot, somewhat agree, or do not agree at all with the 
statement.
Agree a lot
Somewhat 
agree
Do not agree at 
all
Violence Domain
D501 There are times when a woman deserves to be beaten.
D502 A woman should tolerate violence to keep her family together.
D503 A wife who earns more than her husband provokes violence.
Sexuality 
D504 Men are always ready to have sex.
D505 Men need sex more than women do.
D506 You don’t talk about sex, you just do it.
Masculinities 
D507 A man is less of a man if he earns less than his wife.
284 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
D508 To be a man, you need to be tough.
D509 Men should be embarrassed if unable to get an erection.
D509A If someone insults me, I will defend my reputation, with force if I have to
Reproductive Health 
D510 It is a woman’s responsibility to avoid getting pregnant.
D511 Men should be outraged if their wives/partners ask them to use a condom.
Gender roles 
D512 Changing diapers, giving a bath, and feeding kids is the mother’s responsibility.
D513 A woman’s most important role is taking care of her home and family.
D514 A man should have the final word about decisions in his home.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 285
SECTION D6. ACCESS TO HEATH SERVICES, HIV PREVENTION, CARE & SUPPORT
We have arrived at the last section of the questionnaire. We are almost finished. Thank you very much for 
your participation so far.
Filter: IS THE YOUTH THE SAME AS THE RESPONDENT TO THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY, A CAREGIVER OR ISLG MEMBER?
NO YES D602
I am going to read out a list of items and services. Please tell me if you or anyone else in your household has received or accessed any of these items or services in the 
last 6 months. 
Yes No DK Refused Yes No DK Refused
D601
D601.1 HIV test 1 2 8 9 D601.16 Free school supplies or a 
school uniform
 1 2 8 9 
D601.2 Farmer Field School 1 2 8 9 D601.17 Birth registration support 1 2 8 9
D601.3 Free Small Livestock 1 2 8 9 D601.18 Mosquito nets 1 2 8 9
D601.4 Free seed 1 2 8 9 D601.19 Information on child 
protection
 1 2 8 9
D601.5 Nutritional advice in caring for
your children
 1 2 8 9 D601.20 Nutrition messaging for 
pregnant or lactating women
 1 2 8 9
D601.6 Free food 1 2 8 9 D601.21 One Stop (GBV center) 1 2 8 9
D601.7 Information on how to prevent 
HIV and other sexually transmitted 
infections
 1 2 8 9 D601.22 Information on sexual and 
reproductive health and rights
 1 2 8 9
D601.9 Training on Early Childhood 
Development
 1 2 8 9 D601.24 Information on positive 
masculinity and gender equity
 1 2 8 9
D601.10 Livelihood training/income 
generation 
 1 2 8 9 D601.25 Umugoroba w’ababyeyi 
(parental evenings)
 1 2 8 9
D601.11 Community savings/lending 
group 
 1 2 8 9 D601.26 HIV treatment and care 1 2 8 9
D601.12 Life skills training 1 2 8 9 D601.27 Advice on childhood 
immunization
 1 2 8 9
D601.13 Vocational training 
scholarships
 1 2 8 9 D601.28 Positive parenting 1 2 8 9
D601.14 Workforce readiness training 1 2 8 9 D601.29 Growth monitoring for 
children
1 2 8 9
D601.15 Psychosocial support from a 
home visitor or social worker
1 2 8 9
--- END OF SECTION ---
286 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
D602. I have come to the end of my questions. Thank you for participating in this interview! Is there 
anything you would like to add or ask us?
D603 DATE INTERVIEW COMPLETED (dd/mm/20yy) [__ __ /__ __ /2 0 __ __ ]
D604 TIME INTERVIEW COMPLETED (dd/mm/20yy) [_____|_____:_____|______]
D605 INTERVIEWER NOTES
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 287
APPENDIX H. STUDY TEAM
University of Rwanda Staff
Sabine F. Musange, MD, MSc is a Lecturer at the University of Rwanda-School of Public Health. Her
research interest areas include operational research, program evaluations in maternal and child health,
health policy and financing. For the past 9 years, she has been teaching at the School of Public Health and 
working closely with the Ministry of Health and different development partners in developing,
implementing and evaluating health interventions/programs in Rwanda. Dr Musange obtained her
Medical Degree from the School of Medicine at the University of Rwanda, and her Masters in Sciences in
International Health Policy and Management at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management from 
Brandeis University. She is currently doing her PhD in Global Health-Implementation Sciences at the 
University of Washington.
Vedaste Ndahindwa, MD, MSc is a Lecturer at the University of Rwanda, College of Medicine and
Health Sciences, School of Public Health. With 9 years’ experience as a public health specialist, he has
strong interest in Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Nutrition, Clinical Research, Evaluations, Demography and
GIS. He has been the Director of Medical Research Unit and the Coordinator of the National Health
Research Committee in the Medical Research Center Division (RBC) for one year and a half. He has worked on 
several research projects and he has a good experience in study design and protocol development. Recently, he 
was part of the SPH and WB team that evaluated the impact of financial incentives to CHWs on health 
outcomes, where the cooperatives were part of the assessment. Dr Vedaste holds a degree in Medicine from the 
University of Rwanda and a Master’s degree in Biostatistics from Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium. Dr 
Vedaste has expertise in data management and data analysis using many statistical packages and software. 
Ndagijimana Albert, MPH, MSc is an Assistant Lecturer at the University of Rwanda, College of
Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Public Health. At the University of Rwanda, College of Medicine and 
Health Sciences School of Public Health, he is involved in different activities: teaching (strategic problem 
solving, leadership, governance and management of health services, public health emergencies and disasters, 
introduction to one health, etc), research and community activities since 2013. He participates in capacity 
building workshop for other institutions especially in facilitating workshops on research and publications.
Albert’s areas of interest include maternal and child health, HIV prevention, disaster management and
one health approach research. He is also involved in different activities for the past two years including
community services, where he is involved in strengthening resilient capacities of people from floods and
landslides prone area as well as DRC refugees about the effects of these disasters. He is also an expert in
conducting program evaluation (operations research) such Imbuto Foundation Adolescent sexual and
reproductive health program, Rwanda family planning and reproductive health commodities and services 
assessment. He is good at designing and implementing impact evaluations. He has a strong experience in 
coordinating field works as he is familiar to the whole country relief and health services infrastructures. Albert is 
expert in monitoring and evaluation of health programs with a long experience in a district hospital for six 
years. He speaks English, French and Kinyarwanda.
MEASURE Evaluation Staff
Jessica A. Fehringer, PhD, MHS, is the activity lead and principal investigator for the Rwanda evaluation. Dr. 
Fehringer is responsible for oversight of gender-related research activities as well as for leading several 
evaluation and research projects in S. Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. She has a PhD from Johns Hopkins 
288 Rwanda’s Improved Services for Vulnerable Populations Project
University School of Public Health in Population, Family, and Reproductive Health and a Masters in Health 
Sciences in International Health, with a focus on Social and Behavioral Interventions, from the Johns Hopkins 
University School of Public Health. She has worked in international public health, with a focus on the 
empowerment of marginalized groups, for over 15 years. She has designed and carried out qualitative and 
quantitative research and evaluation in South and Southeast Asia, South America, and sub-Saharan Africa on a 
number empowerment and health topics, including the influence of relationship power dynamics on HIV 
prevention and treatment and gender-based violence. She most recently designed and implemented a quasi￾experimental mixed methods evaluation examining the MNCH/FP and health service impacts of integrating 
gender and social inclusion into capacity building with local health facility committees in Nepal; and acted as 
gender advisor and qualitative lead for the design and survey implementation of a mixed methods quasi￾experimental evaluation examining the gender dimensions of impacts of ground nut value chain interventions in 
Zambia.
Lisa Parker, PhD is the OVC Specialist for the Rwanda evaluation. She has more than 15 years of experience 
working in the fields of public health, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and international development with a 
focus on HIV/AIDS, sexual and reproductive health, household economic strengthening, and vulnerable 
children. Dr. Parker’s doctoral dissertation aimed to help develop and evaluate a pilot Positive Prevention 
program for Youth Living with HIV/AIDS ages 15–24 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Dr. Parker 
has experience in both quantitative and qualitative research as well as social and behavioral intervention 
development, adaptation, implementation, and evaluation primarily in sub-Saharan Africa. Currently a 
Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Advisor at MEASURE Evaluation/Futures Group, she oversees a large 
portfolio of OVC M&E capacity-building programs in Nigeria and Cameroon. In this role she is responsible 
for providing technical support to stakeholders to develop M&E systems, guidelines for host country OVC 
programs, and aids in the collection and use of OVC data and information. She has extensive experience living, 
working, and conducting research in Sub-Saharan Africa including in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, 
The DRC, Malawi, Niger, Nigeria, and South Africa. Lisa is fluent in both English and French.
Gustavo Angeles, PhD is the Senior Evaluation Advisor for the Rwanda evaluation. He is a health economist 
and faculty member of UNC’s Gillings School of Public Health, and a Fellow at the Carolina Population 
Center. He has over 20 years of experience on evaluation of health and social development programs in Latin 
America, Africa and Asia and is currently Senior Evaluation Advisor of MEASURE Evaluation where he leads 
the impact evaluation of USAID/Guatemala Western Highland Integrated Program, and co-leads impact 
evaluations of two health programs in Bangladesh. He also participates as instructor on a number of training 
and capacity building activities on impact evaluation conducted in Mexico, South Africa, India, and Nepal. With 
UNICEF and 3ie funding, he is currently co-investigator for the impact evaluations of Malawi’s Social Cash 
Transfer Program and Zimbabwe’s Harmonized Social Cash Transfer Program. Also in Malawi, Dr. Angeles 
co-leads the USAID-funded impact evaluation of the Feed the Future’s Integrated Nutrition and Value Chain 
(INVC) program. He has ample expertise in social cash transfer programs from his current work in Malawi and 
Zimbabwe, and the mid-term evaluation of Mexico’s PROGRESA/Oportunidades program he led as Executive 
Director of the Center for Evaluation Research and Survey in Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health 
(INSP) in 2010-2011. Dr. Angeles worked on impact evaluations of Mexico’s Secretary of Social Development 
cash transfers to the elderly and childcare support to poor working mothers programs, both with 3ie funding. 
He served as Deputy Director of MEASURE Evaluation (2000-2010), providing strategic and technical advice 
to USAID on evaluation and capacity building. In that role, he was technical lead of health program evaluations 
in Bangladesh, Tanzania, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Mexico, Ecuador, and Peru. Additional research 
includes measurement and estimation methods for impact evaluations of health programs.
Initial Data Collection Report for an Impact Evaluation 289
Aimee Benson, MS, leads tablet programming and all data management processes for the tablets. Benson is a 
data processing specialist with over 15 years' experience in developing both PAPI and CAPI data capture 
systems and training and supporting field personnel in their use. She has led capacity building workshops in 
data management and analysis. She has worked in US and international contexts, including Malawi, China, 
Bangladesh, the Caribbean, Zambia, India, Nigeria, Kenya and Senegal. Ms. Benson holds a Master's degree in 
Experimental Psychology from Duke University.
Chris Bernard Agala, PhD is a Research Associate – with Research Analyst role at MEASURE Evaluation 
project based at the Carolina Population Center. He has over 13 years of experience working with non-profit 
and academic institutions, local communities, community- and local government leaders in research, 
intervention design, implementation and monitoring in public health areas including: HIV/AIDS and 
reproductive health, organizational network analysis and referrals, patient reported health outcomes, orphans 
and vulnerable children, health systems and development in Tanzania, Kenya, Malawi, Ethiopia, India and 
Cambodia. He earned his PhD in Health Policy and Management from The University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill’s Gillings School of Global Public Health, his bachelor’s degree in finance at Kenyatta University in 
Nairobi, Kenya and associates degree in computer science from Starehe Technical Training Institute in Nairobi, 
Kenya.
Veronica Varela, MPH is a Research Associate at MEASURE Evaluation. She received her MPH in 
Epidemiology and Maternal and Child Health from the University of South Florida. Ms. Varela has experience 
working in perinatal, child and sexual health epidemiology as well as community health assessments. Ms. Varela 
also has experience in quantitative data analysis using statistical methods such as generalized linear models, 
logistic regressions and survival analysis along with producing data visualization aids for reports and 
publications. Prior to coming to MEASURE Evaluation Ms. Varela worked domestically with various public 
health programs including the Florida Department of Health, March of Dimes and the Florida Birth Defects 
Surveillance Program.