The South Sudan Experimental Phone Survey: Experiences and Lessons

Gabriel DemombynesApril 20. 2011

Workshop on “More Frequent, More Timely & More Comparable Data for Better Results”

Outline

• Why?• How?• What Worked?• What Didn’t Work?• Lessons for the Future

Why?

• To see if it would work• The PA• A data generating platform

How? Phase I

• Phones delivered to 1000 households

• Representative sample of 10 state capitals (urban only, in a rural country)

• Delivery done by Southern Sudan Centre for Census, Statistics and Evaluation in Oct 2010

Some key features of delivery• Pilot conducted in 2 towns in July 2010• Agreement letter• Calendar• 2 types of phones: Nokia vs. solar• 2 levels of airtime credit: 5 vs. 10 SDG• WB supervision in half of locations• Airtime lottery• Backup phone number collected• Choice of language: Juba Arabic, Dinka, Nuer, English• Attempt to get age, gender diversity

July 2010 Pilot

July 2010 Pilot

July 2010 Pilot

November 2010 Phase 1

November 2010 Phase 1

November 2010 Phase 1

November 2010 Phase 1

November 2010 Phase 1

November 2010 Phase 1

Phase II: December 2010-March 2011

• Calls made monthly by Horizon Contact Center, Nairobi-based call center

• Callers: South Sudanese living in Nairobi• “Core” questions from Afrobarometer• “Special” questions asked each month• 15-20 minute interview

Figure 1: Views on the Referendum on the Independence of Southern Sudan

57

90

98

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

Expect long term peace

Favor independence

Aware of the referendum

Figure 3: Responses to “Looking back, how do you rate the following compared to twelve months ago: Your living conditions?“

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

ZimbabweNigeriaGhanaLiberia

NamibiaMalawi

MozambiqueBurkina Faso

ZambiaMali

UgandaTanzania

BotswanaSouth Africa

BeninSenegal

Cape VerdeMadagascar

SOUTHERN SUDANKenya

Lesotho

''Better'' or ''Much Better'' ''Worse'' or ''Much Worse''

Figure 5: Responses to “Looking ahead, do you expect the following to be better or worse: Your living condition in twelve months time?”

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

NigeriaZimbabwe

Cape VerdeGhana

MaliBurkina FasoMozambique

LiberiaBenin

BotswanaSOUTHERN SUDAN

MadagascarNamibiaMalawi

UgandaSenegalZambia

South AfricaKenya

TanzaniaLesotho

''Better'' or ''Much Better'' ''Worse'' or ''Much Worse''

Figure 8: Responses to “In the last year, have you or anybody in your family gone without enough food?”

6147

4141

4040

393737

3632

2827

262525

242020

1513

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80%

ZimbabweBenin

SOUTHERN SUDANLesotho

MadagascarLiberia

Burkina FasoZambia

NamibiaSenegal

MalawiNigeria

MozambiqueKenya

TanzaniaMali

BotswanaUganda

South AfricaCape Verde

Ghana

Figure 10: Responses to “Over the past year, how often, if ever have you or

anyone in your family been physically attacked?”

98

7777

66

54

3333333

222

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80%

NamibiaNigeria

UgandaSouth Africa

LiberiaBurkina Faso

ZimbabweSOUTHERN SUDAN

KenyaMalawiZambia

TanzaniaMali

LesothoCape Verde

BotswanaBenin

SenegalMozambique

GhanaMadagascar

Figure 11: Responses to “Over the past year, how often, if ever, have you or anyone in your family had something stolen from your house?”

7024

2323

1916161616

151414

1312

1111

109

87

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80%

SOUTHERN SUDANBurkina Faso

UgandaLiberia

MozambiqueSouth Africa

SenegalNamibia

MaliZimbabwe

NigeriaBenin

GhanaBotswana

MalawiLesothoZambiaKenya

TanzaniaCape VerdeMadagascar

What Worked Well

• Outsourcing major work with coordination by Bank consultant

• Arrangement with South Sudan stats office• Contract with call center

What Didn’t Work Well

• Timing of Airtime Transfers• High-frequency coordination of payments with

Juba and Khartoum offices

Attrition Over TimePercentages of Households Completing The Interview Each Month

5 SDG 10 SDG0

102030405060 54 50

% Responding in Month 4, by Airtime Credit

Nokia Solar0

102030405060

51 53

% Responding in Month 4, by Phone Type

BORJU

BA

RUMBEKTORIT

MALAKAL

KWAJOK

AWEIL

BENTIUWAU

YAMBIO0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

27

63

4536

78

28

58

43

6472

% Responding in Month 4, by City

BORJU

BA

RUMBEKTORIT

MALAKAL

KWAJOK

AWEIL

BENTIUWAU

YAMBIO0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

27

63

4536

78

28

58

43

6472

% Responding in Month 4, by City

Owned other phone No other phone0

1020304050607080

68

42

% Responding in Month 4, by Ownership of Other Phone

Conclusions

• Outsourcing components, with WB management, worked well

• Lower attrition, lower cost in places with higher cell phone ownership, e.g. Kenya

• More analysis on substance and attrition to come