Matching SUSETI with UDB Administrative Data

Supplementary Online Appendix Appendix A: Matching SUSETI with UDB Administrative Data Before the SUSETI endline survey was conducted, a listing of all households to be surveyed was constructed based on baseline respondents. This list was electronically matched with the UDB using household characteristics such as the addresses and names of the household head and spouse. This list was also matched with the enumeration pre-listing, in order to identify households that were initially on this list but that were not registered in the UDB. During the endline survey fielding, enumerators and community leaders were asked to verify that the electronic matches were correctly identified. They were also asked to identify any other matches not yet identified by comparing the SUSETI listing with the UDB registry. The field-based verification process makes “false positive” matches very unlikely, but a small number of “false negative” matches may exist (i.e., SUSETI households who are also in the UDB but the match was not detected), due to the difficulty in recognizing different versions of names. The expected effects of such potential under-matching would be to slightly inflate the estimated errors of exclusion and to slightly deflate estimated errors of inclusion. Table A.1: Results of Dataset Matching: Share of UDB households in the total population and in the SUSETI District Central Lampung Bandar Lampung Ogan Komering Ilir Palembang Wonogiri Pemalang All UDB 58,576 81,003 82,110 53,693 50,040 121,031 446,453 Total Population Share in UDB All (%) 132,554 44 223,730 36 226,705 36 149,010 36 138,369 36 211,100 57 1,081,468 41 UDB 739 215 344 380 276 490 2,444 SUSETI Sample Share in UDB All (%) 1,408 52 459 47 1,056 33 826 46 984 28 949 52 5,682 43 Notes: This table shows the percent of PKH-eligible households, i.e. households with children aged below 16, registered in the UDB, comparing UDB/Susenas data with SUSETI data for the six sample districts. The first group of columns shows the total number of households with children aged below 16 recorded in the UDB (‘UDB’ column) and in the full population from Susenas 2010 data (‘All’ column). The second group of columns shows the number of households from the SUSETI data successfully matched with the UDB administrative data (‘UDB’) and the total number of households in SUSETI (‘All’). Table A.1 shows the results of the matching process used to determine which households from the SUSETI survey are registered in the UDB. Overall, 41 percent of the PKH eligible population in the SUSETI districts is registered in the UDB. Given regional variation in rates of poverty and vulnerability, the matching percentage differs across districts, from 28 percent of the SUSETI sample in Wonogiri to 52 percent in Central Lampung and Pemalang.28 28 Matching rates in the urban districts of Bandar Lampung and Palembang appear relatively higher than the share of the population registered in the UDB, suggesting that there may be local-level characteristics that affect the matching rate. However, we obtain similar results to Table B.1 when considering district-specific average village shares of UDB households in the population and in the SUSETI sample. Appendix B: Incorporating Partially Hidden Assets in the PMT Table B.1: Household Hidden Assets Negative Lists 1: Private savings ≥ IDR 500,000 2: Gold and/or private savings ≥ IDR 500,000 3: Livestock valued at IDR 500,000 or more 4: Farm land > 0.2 ha Observations nonUDB UDB 227 913 466 1372 412 853 432 921 UDB 0.09 0.19 0.17 0.18 Mean nonUDB 0.28 0.42 0.26 0.28 t-stat 18.12 19.18 8.56 9.51 Notes: Negative lists 1 to 3 are based on ownership of savings, gold and livestock of a value higher than 500,000 (USD 40); negative list 4 is based on ownership of farm land of a size larger than 0.2 ha. Table B.2: Expected Change in Targeting Accuracy When Augmenting PMT Classification with Negative Listss Expected UDB PMT + Neg. List 1 Change in targeting errors – Neg. List 1 compared to UDB (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) Change in targeting errors – Neg. List 2 compared to UDB (%) (5) Panel A: Jamkesmas Coverage (No. Households) Leakage Severe Leakage Undercoverage Severe Undercoverage 1858 22.7 17.4 52.6 48.4 1858 21.9 16.6 51.5 46.1 -3.5 -4.6 -2.1 -4.8 1820 21 16.4 51.6 45.4 -7.5 -5.7 -1.9 -6.2 1694 20.5 16.1 56.2 51.1 -9.7 -7.5 6.8 5.6 1776 21.2 16.2 54.6 49.3 -6.6 -6.9 3.8 1.9 Panel B: BLT Coverage (No. Households) Leakage Severe Leakage Undercoverage Severe Undercoverage 1628 19.2 14.5 57.6 53.7 1628 18.5 13.8 56.6 51.9 -3.6 -4.8 -1.7 -3.4 1624 18.4 13.8 56.2 49.8 -4.2 -4.8 -2.4 -7.3 1515 17.7 13.5 60 54.8 -7.8 -6.9 4.2 2.0 1593 18.6 14 58.1 52.8 -3.1 -3.4 0.9 -1.7 PMT + Neg. List 2 PMT + Neg. List 3 Change in targeting errors – Neg. List 3 compared to UDB (%) PMT + Neg. List 4 Change in targeting errors – Neg. List 4 compared to UDB (%) (6) (7) (8) (9) Notes: This table reports estimates of UDB targeting errors based on the PMT scores of households actually registered in the UDB. Column (1) reports errors based on actual beneficiary lists issued from the UDB. Columns (2), (4), (6) and (8) report targeting errors in simulated negative list scenarios. Program eligibility is determined using actual PMT scores and ownership of savings (col. 2); savings and/or gold (col. 4); livestock (col. 6); and farm land (col. 8). BLT eligiblity is based on the same procedure as in Table 4, i.e. on ranking households registered in the UDB by their PMT scores and taking all households with PMT scores up to the number of households reporting BLT 2008 receipt in SUSETI. Changes in columns 3, 5, 7 and 9 are calculated as a share of expected UDB errors from Table 3 (Table 4 for BLT 2008). A negative (positive) sign indicates a decrease (increase) in targeting errors under the negative list scenario based on ownership on savings compared to actual UDB. Appendix C: Additional Results Figure C.1: Exclusion Errors among the Poor across Different Targeting Schemes Jamkesmas BLT probability of being excluded .6 .5 .4 pctile: 10 20 30 pctile: 10 20 30 .3 .2 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 13 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 log per capita expenditures 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 13 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 log per capita expenditures Baseline UDB Full enumeration Negative list Notes: This figure assesses targeting errors across the poorest three deciles. Per capita expenditures are from the SUSETI. “Baseline” shows the relatively uniform exclusion errors across the bottom three deciles. “UDB” shows the expected targeting outcomes under the UDB. “Full enumeration” refers to all households in the SUSETI sample ranked according to their PMT score reconstructed using the underlying PMT variables from SUSETI. “Negative list” refers to SUSETI households matched with the UDB which do not own any of the hidden assets considered and ranked using their PMT score from the UDB. All curves are based on kernel regressions with a rule-of-thumb bandwidth and an Epanechnikov kernel. The bottom percentile is trimmed for presentation purposes, but results are similar when it is included. Confidence bands are omitted for presentational purposes but fully overlap for the partial full census and negative listing approaches.