The “WEAI” forward:What we’ve learned and where we’re

going

Photo credits: Chiara Kovarik and Katie Sproule

Hazel Malapit - Research Coordinator/IFPRIWEAI Stakeholder Convening, Washington DC, 27 May 2015

Overview• Revising the WEAI overview• 10 indicator vs 6 indicator WEAI comparison • Indicator by indicator highlights from the pilot– Modifications to questionnaire– Recommendations of what to keep– Rationale

• Weighting issues • Name challenge • Next steps

p. 2

Revising the WEAI

• USAID Goals:– Streamline survey– Reduce time to administer by ~30% – Improve problematic modules (time use, autonomy in

production, credit, and speaking in public) • Process – Conducted cognitive testing– Conducted pilot fieldwork in Bangladesh and Uganda

• Outcome: Version of WEAI with 6 indicators and streamlined questions

Survey times

Pilot 1.1 Pilot 2.0Ban Uga Ban Uga

DM in production & income 6 4

DM in production, income & hh 10 5

Assets 11 6 Assets 10 5Credit 5 3 Credit 6 3Leadership 10 5DM in hh & autonomy 12 9 Autonomy vignettes 16 8Time use 15 9 Time use-7dr 10 7

Time use-24hr 12 7Leisure - - Leisure 3 1

Leadership - -TOTAL* 62 37 TOTAL 7dr** 65 34Target (30% reduction) 43 26 TOTAL 24hr** 67 34

Median minutes spent collecting each sub-module, both countries

*Includes Leadership time from 2.0 **Includes Leisure time from 1.1

p. 4

DOMAIN INDICATORS1 Production Input in productive decisions

2 Resources Ownership of assetsAccess to and decisions on credit

3 Income Control over use of income4 Leadership Group membership

5 Time Workload

DOMAIN INDICATORS1 Production Input in productive decisions

Autonomy in production

2 Resources Ownership of assetsPurchase, sale, or transfer of assetsAccess to and decisions on credit

3 Income Control over use of income

4 Leadership Group membershipSpeaking in public

5 Time WorkloadLeisure

Old vs new comparison

Original: 5 domains, 10 indicators New: 5 domains, 6 indicators

ProductionIndicator 1: Input in productive decisions

Indicator 2: Autonomy in production

• Pilot modifications– Input in productive decisions: no significant

modifications piloted – Autonomy in production: tested original autonomy

questions against a series of vignettes that ask about autonomy in various agricultural activities

• Recommendations– Input in productive decisions: keep– Autonomy in production: drop

Autonomy

missing

never true

not very true

somewhat true

always true

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Figure 7: Distribution of responses to "no option" vignettes, by activity & sex of respondent, Bangladesh

Livestock raising female

Livestock raising male

Taking crops to market female

Taking crops to market male

Types of crops to grow female

Types of crops to grow male

p. 7

ResourcesIndicator 1: Ownership of assets

Indicator 2: Purchase, sale or transfer of assetsIndicator 3: Access to and decisions on credit

• Pilot modifications– Ownership of assets

• Ownership definition changed from “who owns most” to “do you own any”? • Eliminated question asking for number of assets.

– Purchase, sale or transfer of assets: Tested combined rights question (sell, give away, mortgage, rent) versus separate rights questions as analysis of original pilot data suggested rights are bundled together.

– Access to and decisions on credit • Added question on hypothetical borrowing. • Changed definition of adequacy for credit indicator – respondents from non-borrower

households are counted as “adequate” if their household can borrow from at least one credit source (excluding friends and family).

• Recommendations– Ownership of assets: keep, but modify – Purchase, sale or transfer of assets: drop – Access to and decisions on credit: keep, but modify

ResourcesIndicator 1: Ownership of assets

Indicator 2: Purchase, sale or transfer of assetsIndicator 3: Access to and decisions on credit

UGANDA

Empowerment rates conditional on asset ownership empowerment

1.0 VERSION 1.1 VERSION 2.0 VERSION Men (%) Women (%) Men (%) Women (%) Men (%) Women (%)Asset rights indicator 94.36 89.61 97.79 91.41 97.92 86.7Credit indicator 33.21 25.41 64.39 65.36 78.68 75.28

Empowerment rates conditional on asset rights empowerment

1.0 VERSION 1.1 VERSION 2.0 VERSION Men (%) Women (%) Men (%) Women (%) Men (%) Women (%)Ownership indicator 99.60 93.88 100 100 100 99.39Credit indicator 32.80 25.86 64.34 65.71 79.1 79.35

OVERALL CORRELATIONS (PWCORR)UGANDA Men

joint own asset joint any right

asset joint any right asset -- 1.0000 -- joint any credit -- 0.0855 -- (0.3221) Women

joint own asset joint any right

asset joint any right asset 0.1905*** 1.0000 (0.0083) joint any credit 0.0254 0.2382*** (0.7338) (0.0012)

IncomeIndicator 1: Control over use of income

• Pilot modifications – Combined into section with input in production decisions– Not clear if it saved time

• Recommendations – Control over use of income indicator: keep – Change definition: Adequate if there is at least one

domain where individual has some input in income decisions [or feels she/he can make decisions regarding wage, employment and minor hh expenditures; as long the only domain in which the individual feels that he/she makes decisions is not minor household expenditures]

LeadershipIndicator 1: Group member

Indicator 2: Speaking in public

• Pilot modifications– Group member: Minor changes (changes in sequence in qx, group categories,

added DK as response)– Speaking in public: New questions designed to be more broad and less

controversial; new adequacy cutoff if reported comfort in speaking in public or has spoken up in last 3 months

• Recommendations– Group member indicator: keep – Speaking in public indicator: drop

• Rationale– Group member indicator emerged as a top constraint in 6 out of 13 countries from

the FtF WEAI baseline data – While the new speaking in public questions seem to do better than the old ones,

this indicator has not been useful for analyses and in many places has been sensitive to collect (was not collected in Cambodia or Tajikistan)

TimeIndicator 1: Workload

Indicator 2: Leisure

• Pilot modifications– Workload: collected a 7-day recall (both last 7-day and typical 7-days), 24-hr recall w/ primary and

secondary activities and a 24-hr recall w/ primary activities only– Leisure: no change except sequence in qx

• Findings– 7 day recall faster to implement than 24 hr recall w/ primary and secondary; however, concern

about recall accuracy and burden on enumerators to calculate – 24 hr recall w/ primary only saves 2-3 minutes compared to 24 hr recall w/ primary and secondary – Both Uganda and Bangladesh teams prefer 24 hr recall to 7 day recall because of recall accuracy

concerns • Recommendations

– Workload indicator: keep -- collect 24 hr recall w/ primary activities only – Leisure indicator: drop

• Rationale– Workload indicator was identified as a top constraint in 6 out of 13 countries in the FtF WEAI

baseline data – Leisure indicator has not been useful for analyses because concern on women’s adaptive

expectations

Workload 7dr vs 24hr

Average work hours by method, country and sex of respondentBangladesh Uganda

male female total male female totalPilot 1.1N 179 221 400 136 140 27624hr primary & secondary 9.4 8.8 9 8.1 10 9.124hr primary only 9.3 8.8 9 8.1 10 9.1

Pilot 2.0N 175 225 400 144 189 3337dr actual 8 8.7 8.4 8.7 13 117dr typical 9.8 11 10 11 14 13

N 175 225 400 142 149 29124hr primary only 8.5 8.9 8.7 6.3 9.1 7.7

p. 13

DOMAIN INDICATORS WEIGHT

1 Production Input in productive decisions

1/5 1/5

2 Resources Ownership of assetsAccess to and decisions on credit

1/10 2/15

1/10 1/15

3 Income Control over use of income

1/5 1/5

4 Leadership Group membership 1/5 1/5

5 Time Workload 1/5 1/5

TOTAL 100%

DOMAIN INDICATORS WEIGHT1 Production Input in productive

decisionsAutonomy in production

1/10

1/10

2 Resources Ownership of assetsPurchase, sale, or transfer of assetsAccess to and decisions on credit

1/15

1/15

1/15

3 Income Control over use of income

1/5

4 Leadership Group membershipSpeaking in public

1/101/10

5 Time WorkloadLeisure

1/101/10

TOTAL 100%

Old vs new comparison - weights

Original: 5 domains, 10 indicators New: 5 domains, 6 indicators

Old vs new comparison - 5DE decomposition

10 6 - 1/10 w 6 - 1/15 w 10 6 - 1/10 w 6 - 1/15 wFemale Male

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

17.111.3 11.7 8.3

1.7 1.7

23.5

16.2 13.214.8

2.6 2.3

14.4

16.917.5

13.0

12.0 12.0

31.5

37.3 38.7

39.8

46.2 46.3

13.318.3 19.0

24.1

37.6 37.7

Bangladesh: 10 vs 6 indicators

Production Resources Income Leadership Time

10 6 - 1/10 w 6 - 1/15 w 10 6 - 1/10 w 6 - 1/15 wFemale Male

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

15.319.8 20.2 21.7 23.3 22.7

19.0 13.5 10.817.4 14.0 11.4

26.3 27.0 27.6 8.72.3

2.3

14.4 18.0 18.4

26.037.2

38.6

25.0 21.6 23.0 26.0 23.3 25.0

Uganda: 10 vs 6 indicators

Production Resources Income Leadership Time

Top contributors to disempowerment

Bangladesh Uganda Indicators Women Men Women Men 10 1. group

member2. credit3. speaking in

public

1. group member

2. workload3. control over

income

1. control over income

2. workload3. credit

1. group member

2. credit3. workload

6 credit weight=1/10

1. group member

2. workload3. control over

income

1. group member

2. workload3. control over

income

1. control over income

2. workload3. input in

decisions

1. group member

2. workload2. input in decisions

6credit weight =1/15

1. group member

2. workload3. control over

income

1. group member

2. workload3. control over

income

1. control over income

2. workload3. input in

decisions

1. group member

2. workload3. input in

decisions

Old vs new comparison - rankings

The new WEAI

• Reflects 5 domains

• Collects on fewer (6) indicators

• Smaller and quicker to implement

DOMAIN INDICATORS WEIGHT

1 Production Input in productive decisions

1/5 1/5

2 Resources Ownership of assetsAccess to and decisions on credit

1/10 2/15

1/10 1/15

3 Income Control over use of income

1/5 1/5

4 Leadership Group membership 1/5 1/5

5 Time Workload 1/5 1/5

TOTAL 100%

Name that WEAI contest!

• Your mission: Come up with a new name for the 6 indicator WEAI!!

• Instructions: Write your name, email, and name ideas on the index card. You can propose as many names as you like. Be CREATIVE !!

• Logistics: The WEAI team will select the winning entry. The winner gets bragging rights and a token.

Next Steps

• Finalizing the new WEAI• Name the new WEAI• Creating a “Community of Practice” for WEAI

users

Thank you!

Any questions?Contact Hazel Malapit at h.malapit@cgiar.org

Visit the WEAI Resource Center:http://www.ifpri.org/book-9075/ourwork/program/weai-resource-center

Proportion of respondents who have inadequate achievements in control over use of income (raw and censored), by country and sex of respondent

IncomeIndicator 1: Control over

use of income

p. 21

Bangladesh Ugandamale female all male female all

Pilot 1.1N 179 221 400 136 178 314% missing 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%N with 10 indicators 175 219 394 73 133 206raw headcount 0.006 0.128 0.074 0.082 0.263 0.199censored headcount 0.006 0.128 0.074 0.055 0.226 0.165Pilot 2.0, 24 hr time moduleN 175 225 400 145 193 338% missing 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1%N with 10 indicators 172 221 393 128 143 271raw headcount 0.041 0.131 0.092 0.023 0.224 0.129censored headcount 0.041 0.127 0.089 0.023 0.210 0.122Pilot 2.0, 24 hr time module + new control over income definition% missing 61% 48% 54% 41% 35% 38%N with 10 indicators 69 116 185 74 107 181raw headcount 0.391 0.655 0.557 0.487 0.682 0.602censored headcount 0.319 0.603 0.497 0.378 0.626 0.525