REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA LIBERIA CORE WELFARE INDICATORS QUESTIONNAIRE (CWIQ) SURVEY 2010 STATISTICAL ABSTRACT

Transcription

1 REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA LIBERIA CORE WELFARE INDICATORS QUESTIONNAIRE (CWIQ) SURVEY 2010 STATISTICAL ABSTRACT Liberia Institute of Statistics & Geo-Information Services Statistics (LISGIS) Statistics House 9th Street, Sinkor P.O. Box 629 Monrovia, Liberia

2

3 COPYRIGHT RESERVED Extracts may be published if source is duly acknowledged. Additional information on the CWIQ survey can be obtained from the Director-General, Liberia Institute of Statistics & Geo-Information Services Statistics (LISGIS), Statistics House, 9th Street, Sinkor, P. O. Box 629, Monrovia, Liberia. Tel.: / Website:

4 ADMINISTRATIVE MAP OF LIBERIA

5 Page Preface 6 Acknowledgements 7 Definition of Concepts 8 Special Notes Concerning Survey 10 INTRODUCTION 11 SAMPLE SIZE Table 1.1 Sample Size for the Liberia Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIQ) Survey DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Table of Contents Table 2.1 Percentage Distribution of Population by Sex 16 Table 2.2 Percentage Distribution of Households by Household Composition (size) 16 Table 2.3 Percentage Distribution of Population Structure by Broad Age-groups 17 Table 2.4 Percentage Distribuition of Household Members Relationship to Head 17 Table 2.5 Percentage Distribution of Population by Sex, Broad Age-groups and Area of Residence 18 Table 2.6 Percentage Distribution of Population (population pyramid) by Sex, Broad Age-groups and 19 Area of Residence Table 2.7 Percentage Distribution of Population (10+ years) by Marital Status 20 Table 2.8 Percentage Distribution of Children (0-17 years) by Orphaned and Father Living at Home 20 Table 2.9 Percentage Distribution of Children (0-17 years) by Orphaned and Mother Living at Home 21 Table 2.10 Percentage Distribution of Children (0-17 years) by Orphanedhood 21 Table 2.11 Pecentage Distribution of Population (10+ years) who Contribute to Household Income by Sex, 22 Area of Residence and Broad Age-groups Table 2.12 Distribution of Population (10+ years) who Contribute to Household Income by Relationship to 23 Head Table 2.13 Percentage Distribution of Population (Liberians) by Religious Affiliation 23 Table 2.14 Distribution of Population by Nationality and by Gender 24 LITERACY AND EDUCATION Table 3.1 Percentage Distribution of Adult (15+ years) Literacy Levels by Sex 24 Table 3.2 Percentage Distribution of Youth (15-24 years) Literacy Levels by Sex 24 Table 3.3 Percentage Distribution of Adult (15+ years) Literacy Levels by Area of Residence, Sex and 25 Broad Age-groups Table 3.4 Percentage Distribution of Youth (15-24 years) Literacy Levels by Area of Residence, Sex and 26 Single Ages Table 3.5 Percentage Distribution Population (6+ years) who Ever Attended School by Sex 27 Table 3.6 Percentage Distribution of Population (6+ years) who Ever Attended School by Sex, Area of 28 Residence and Broad Age-group Table 3.7 Percentage Distribution of Children (6-17 years) who Have Never Attended School by Sex 29 Table 3.8 Percentage of Children (6-17 years) who Ever Attended School but Not Currently Attending 29 School Table 3.9 Percentage Distribution of Male Population (6+ years) by Highest Level of Education 30 Completed Table 3.10 Percentage Distribution of Female Population (6+ years) by Highest Level of Education 31 Completed Table 3.11 Percentage Distribution Population (6+ years) by Highest Level of Education Completed 31 Table 3.12 Percentage Distribution of Population (6+ years) by Highest Level of Education Completed, Sex and Broad Age-group 32 1

6 Table 3.13 Gross Enrolment Rates by Type of School and Sex 33 Table 3.14 Net Enrolment rates by Type of School and Sex 34 Table 3.15 Gross Enrolment rates for Junior and Senior Secondary by Sex 35 Table 3.16 Net Enrolment rates for Junior and Senior Secondary by Sex 36 Table 3.17 Percentage Distribution of Children Currently in School by Type of School and Access to 37 School Within 5Km Table 3.19 Percentage Distribution of Children Currently in School by Who Runs and Manages the School 37 Table 3.19 Percentage Distribution of Children Currently in School by Level of Education, Who Runs the 38 School Table 3.20 Percentage Distribution of Satisfaction Levels for Children Currently at School by Level of 39 Education Table 3.21 Percentage Distribution of Students Currently Enrolled in School with Reasons for 40 Dissatisfaction Table 3.22 Percentage Distribution of Students Currently Enrolled in Primary School by Difficulty in 41 Satisfying the School Fees Needs Table 3.23 Percentage Distribution of Students Currently Enrolled in Secondary School by Difficulty in 41 Satisfying the School Fees Needs Table 3.24 Percentage Distribution of Population (15+ years) by Most Important Source of Information 42 Table 3.25 Percentage Distribution of Male Population (15+ years) by Most Important Source of 43 Information Table 3.26 Percentage Distribution of Female Population (15+ years) by Most Important Source of 43 Information Table 3.27 Percentage Distribution by Broad Age-groups and Most Important Source of Information 44 HEALTH Table 4.1 Percentage Distribution of Population by Disability Status, Type of Disability, Severity of 45 Disability Table 4.2 Percentage of Women (12-49 years) who had a Live Birth Last 12 months and Received Prenatal 46 and Post-natal Care Table 4.3 Percentage of Women (12-49 years) who had a Live Birth last 12 months, Pre-natal and Postnatal 47 Care by Age-group and Area of Residence Table 4.4 Percentage Distribution of Population by Incidence of Sickness (Need) in the last Four Weeks 48 Table 4.5 Percentage Distribution of Population Sick or Injured by Type of Illness, Region, Sex and 49 Broad Age-groups Table 4.6 Percentage Distribution of Population Sick or Injured by Type of Illness, Region, Sex and 50 Broad Age-groups Table 4.7 Percentage Distribution of Population Who Consulted a Health Practitioner (Use) by Sex 51 Table 4.8 Percentage Distribution of Population Who Were Sick by Type of Health Practitioner Consulted 52 (Use) Table 4.9 Percentage Distribution of Population Sick Who Consulted a Health Practitioner and 53 Satisfaction with Medical Services Table 4.10 Percentage Distribution of Population Sick Who Consulted a Health Practitioner by Access to a 53 Health facility within 5Km Table 4.11 Percentage of Sick Persons who Consulted a Health Provider and Were Not Satisfied, and 54 Reasons for Dissatisfaction Table 4.12 Percentage of Persons who did not Consult a Health Provider When Sick and Reasons for Not Consulting 55 HOUSEHOLD HEAD CHARACTERISTICS Table 5.1 Percentage Distribution of Household Heads by Sex 56 Table 5.2 Percentage Distribution of Household Heads by Sex, Area of Residence and Broad Age- Groups 57 2

7 Table 5.3 Percentage Distribution of Household Heads by Sex (Population pyramid), Area of Residence 58 and Broad Age-groups Table 5.4 Percentage Distribution of Household Heads by Marital Status 59 Table 5.5 Percentage Distribution of Male Household Heads by Marital Status 60 Table 5.6 Percentage Distribution of Female Household Heads by Marital Status 60 Table 5.7 Percentage Distribution of Household Heads who have Ever Attended School by Sex 61 Table 5.8 Percentage Distribution of Literacy Levels of Household Heads by Sex 61 Table 5.9 Percentage Distribution of Literacy Levels of Household Heads by Sex, Area of Residence and 62 Broad Age-groups Table 5.10 Percentage Distribution of Highest Education Level Completed of Household Heads 63 Table 5.11 Percentage Distribution of Highest Education Level Completed of Male Household Heads 64 Table 5.12 Percentage Distribution of Highest Education Level Completed of Female Household Heads 64 Table 5.13 Percentage Distribution of Highest Education Level Completed of Household Heads by Agegroup 65 and Gender Table 5.14 Percentage Distribution of Highest Education Level Completed of Household Heads for Rural 66 Area by Sex and Age-group Table 5.15 Percentage Distribution of Highest Education Level Completed of Household Heads for Urban Area by Sex and Age-group 67 HOUSEHOLD AMENITIES AND ASSETS Table 6.1 Percentage Distribution of Households by Housing Tenure 68 Table 6.2 Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Documents to Prove Occupancy 68 Table 6.3 Percentage Distribution of Households At Risk of Being Forced to leave Household and/or 69 Land Table 6.4 Percentage Distribution of Households At Risk of Being Forced by Type of Documents 69 Table 6.5 Percentage Distribution of Households At Risk of Being Forced by Home Ownership 70 Table 6.6 Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Housing Unit 70 Table 6.7 Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Rooms 71 Table 6.8 Percentage Distribution of Households by Main Material Used for Wall Construction of the 71 House Table 6.9 Percentage Distribution of Households by Main Material Used for Roof Construction of the 72 House Table 6.10 Percentage Distribution of Households by Main Material Used for Floor Construction of the 72 House Table 6.11 Percentage Distribution of Households by Improved Water Source, Main Source of Drinking 73 Water Table 6.12 Percentage Distribution of Households by Safe Sanitation, Main Type of Toilet 74 Table 6.13 Percentage Distribution of Households by Non-wood Fuel Use and Main Source of Fuel for 75 Cooking Table 6.14 Percentage Distribution of Households by Main Source of Fuel for Lighting 75 Table 6.15 Percentage Distribution of Households by Improved Garbage Disposal, Type of Main Garbage 76 Disposal Table 6.16 Percentage Distribution of Households by Land Size Owned (ha) 77 Table 6.17 Percentage Distribution of Households by Land Size Compared to One year ago 77 Table 6.18 Percentage Distribution of Households by Land Used that does Not Own by Use 78 Table 6.19 Percentage Distribution of Households by Land Size (ha) for Land Used and Not Owned 79 Table 6.20 Percentage Distribution of Households by Land Used but Not Owned Compared to One year 79 ago Table 6.21 Percentage Distribution of Households Using Agricultural Inputs 80 Table 6.22 Percentage Distribution of Households by Main Source of Agricultural Inputs 80 Table 6.23 Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Sheep Owned 81 3

8 Table 6.24 Percentage Distribution of Households by Sheep Owned Compared to One year ago 81 Table 6.25 Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Goats Owned 82 Table 6.26 Percentage Distribution of Households by Goats Owned Compared to One year ago 82 Table 6.27 Percentage Distribution of Households Owning Certain Assets 83 ACCESS TO SOCIAL AMENITIES Table 7.1 Percentage Distribution of Population By Access and Distance to Nearest Primary School 84 Table 7.2 Percentage Distribution of Population By Access and Distance to Nearest Secondary School 84 Table 7.3 Percentage Distribution of Population By Access and Distance to Nearest Health Clinic 85 Table 7.4 Percentage Distribution of Population By Access to Supply of Safe Drinking Water, Distance to 85 Table 7.5 Percentage of Distribution Population By Access and Distance to Nearest Police station 86 Table 7.6 Percentage Distribution of Population By Access and Distance to Nearest Court 86 Table 7.7 Percentage Distribution of Population By Access and Distance to Nearest Food Market 87 Table 7.8 Percentage Distribution of Population By Access and Distance to Nearest Public Transport 87 Table 7.9 Percentage Distribution of Population By Access and Distance to Nearest All Season Road 88 Table 7.10 Percentage Distribution of Population By Access and Distance to Nearest Any Road 88 HOUSEHOLD PERCEPTIONS OF WELL-BEING Table 8.1 Percentage Distribution of Households by Difficulty in Satisfying the Food Needs 89 Table 8.2 Percentage Distribution of Households by Difficulty in Satisfying the School Fees Needs 89 Table 8.3 Percentage Distribution of Households by Difficulty in Satisfying the Health Bills Needs 90 Table 8.4 Percentage Distribution of Households by Difficulty in Satisfying the House Rent Needs 90 Table 8.5 Percentage Distribution of Households by Difficulty in Satisfying the Utility Bills Needs 91 Table 8.6 Percentage Distribution of Households by Perception of the Economic Situation of Community 91 Compared to One Year Ago Table 8.7 Percentage Distribution of Households by Perception of Wellbeing based on Income 92 Table 8.8 Percentage Distribution of Households by Perceived Poverty Status 92 Table 8.9 Percentage Distribution of Household's Financial Situation and average monthly Liberian $ 93 Table 8.10 Percentage Distribution of Household Income and Household Living Standard 93 Table 8.11 Percentage Distribution of Households by Membership of an Association 94 Table 8.12 Percentage Distribution of Sources of Assistance to Households in Times of Finanancial 94 Difficulty Table 8.13 Percentage Distribution of Households by Most important measure Government should take to Improve Household Living Standard 95 DISPLACEMENT AND FOOD AID Table 9.1 Percentage Distribution of Households Displaced and Returned to Place of Origin 96 Table 9.2 Percentage Distribution of Households Displaced by Main Reasons for Not Returning 96 Table 9.3 Percentage Distribution of Households by Food Situation 97 Table 9.4 Percentage Distribution of Households Who Received Food Aid and Type of Program 98 Table 9.5 Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Assistance (Money Allowance/Loans) 99 received Last 12 months Table 9.6 Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Assistance (Education school materials) 100 received Last 12 months Table 9.7 Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Assistance (Medical services) received Last months Table 9.8 Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Assistance (Construction/Building materials) 102 received Last 12 months Table 9.9 Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Assistance (Water and/or Sanitation) 103 4

9 Table 9.10 Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Assistance (Agricultural assistance) 104 received Last 12 months Table 9.11 Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Community Support Assistance 105 KEY TABLES COMPARING 2007 and 2010 Table 10.1 Percentage Distribution of Population by Sex, 2007 and Table 10.2 Percentage Distribution of Population Structure by Broad Age-groups, 2007 and Table 10.3 Percentage Distribution of Household Heads by Sex, 2007 and Table 10.4 Percentage Distribution of Adult (15+ years) Literacy Levels by Sex, 2007 and Table 10.5 Percentage Distribution of Youth (15-24 years) Literacy Levels by Sex, 2007 and Table 10.6 Percentage Distribution Population (6+ years) who Ever Attended School by Sex, 2007 and Table 10.7 Percentage Distribution of Children (6-17 years) who Have Never Attended School by Sex, and 2010 Table 10.8 Percentage Distribution Population (6+ years) by Highest Level of Education Completed, and 2010 Table 10.9 Gross Enrolment Rates by Type of School and Sex, 2007 and Table Net Enrolment Rates by Type of School and Sex, 2007 and Table Gross Junior and Senior Secondary School Enrolment Rates and Sex, 2007 and Table Net Junior and Senior Secondary School Enrolment Rates and Sex, 2007 and Table Percentage of Women (12-49 years) who had a Live Birth last 12 months, Pre-natal and Postnatal 118 Care by Age-group and Area of Residence, 2007 and 2010 Table Percentage Distribution of Population Who Consulted a Health Practitioner (Use) by Sex, and 2010 Table Percentage Distribution of Population Sick Who Consulted a Health Practitioner and 119 Satisfaction with Medical Services, 2007 and 2010 Table Percentage Distribution of Households by Housing Tenure, 2007 and Table Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Documents to Prove Occupancy, 2007 and Table Percentage Distribution of Households by Improved Water Source, Main Source of Drinking 122 Water, 2007 and 2010 Table Percentage Distribution of Households by Safe Sanitation, Main Type of Toilet, 2007 and Table Percentage Distribution of Households by Non-wood Fuel Use and Main Source of Fuel for 124 Cooking, 2007 and 2010 Table Percentage Distribution of Households by Main Source of Fuel for Lighting, 2007 and Table Percentage Distribution of Households by Land Size Owned (ha), 2007 and Table Percentage Distribution of Households by Difficulty in Satisfying the Food Needs, 2007 and Table Percentage Distribution of Households by Difficulty in Satisfying the Health Bills Needs, and 2010 Table Percentage Distribution of Households by Perceived Poverty Status, 2007 and Table Percentage Distribution of Household's Financial Situation and average monthly Liberian $ 130 needed to satisfy basic needs, 2007 and

10 Preface Two CWIQ surveys have been undertaken in Liberia and The first survey conducted in 2007 gave regional-based estimates and indicators. In 2010 however, Liberia Institute of Statistics & Geo- Information Services Statistics (LISGIS) conducted the first county-based Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire Survey (CWIQ). This is the first nationally representative survey where county-level estimates have been derived. The surveys have been used to assess the social and economic situation in the country and have led to more informed and focused debate on how welfare and vulnerability challenges may be tackled. This survey is rich with information on topics such as, literacy and education, employment, household assets and amenities, access, use and satisfaction with basic facilities, vulnerability, subjective well-being, indirect measures of poverty using non-moneymetric measurement and others. It is important that Government and the development partners strive to expand the economic opportunities for the less privileged and reduce their vulnerability. It is our hope that information in this report will contribute significantly to the development process and form the basis of identifying designing and refocusing welfare intervention strategies and programmes in the country. Other publications on the 2010 Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire Survey (CWIQ) include, main report, a fact-sheet, and a CD-ROM with the database and publications. On behalf of the Government of Liberia, the Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services would like to thank Government of Liberia, the UNDP, FAO and the ILO for their financial support in conducting the first county-based CWIQ survey, and the World Bank for technical assistance in processing, analyzing and publishing this abstract. October 2012 Dr. T. Edward Liberty Government Statistician Liberia Institute of Statistics & Geo-Information Services Statistics 6

11 Acknowledgements This Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIQ) Statistical Abstract has been authored and prepared by a team of officers from the Liberia Institute of Statistics & Geo-Information Services Statistics. The team was led by Mr. Richard Nguafan under the guidance of the Director General Dr. T. Edward Liberty. The authors would like to acknowledge particularly the contributions of various people and institutions, who reviewed and gave comments that led to the improvement of the final statistical abstract. Special thanks go to the UNDP and the World Bank for their support in validating the data to be used for the analysis. We express gratitude to Ms. Rose Mungai, of the World Bank, for her immeasurable contribution from the inception of data cleaning unto the writing of the final report. We extend profound thanks to the dedicated survey staff for their invaluable contribution and perseverance in ensuring the completion of the survey and this report. Finally, we acknowledge the many others who encouraged us and the cooperation of all survey respondents in making the 2010 Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIQ) a reality. 7

12 Definition of Concepts Region: There are five administrative regions in Liberia. County: Liberia changed from the local authorities system of administration to the county assembly in 19XX. The country is demarcated into 16 counties out of the existing XX districts. The boundaries of the districts conform to the boundaries of the counties and regional boundaries. County is the lower-level divisions from regions. Urban/Rural: The rural/urban classification of localities is population based, with a population size of X,XXX or more being urban and less than X,XXX being rural, as used in earlier census. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Population defined here is not the CENSUS definition (de facto count). Population referred here are only persons living in households and excludes persons in Institutions, streets, etc. EDUCATION AND LITERACY Adult Literacy is defined for persons age 15 years and above who can read and write in any language. Youth Literacy is defined for persons age 15 to 24 years who can read and write in any language. Primary school estimates are defined for children aged 6 to 11 years. Access is defined as children currently in primary schools withint 5Km of a primary school. Enrollment (net) is defined for children currently in primary school (P1 to P6) of primary school age (6-11 years). Enrollment (gross) is defined for children currently in primary school (P1 to P6) of all ages. Satisfaction is defined for children of all ages currently in primary school who cited no problems with school. Secondary school estimates are defined for children aged 12 to 17 years. Access is defined for children currently in secondary school in households less than 5km from a secondary school. Enrollment (net) is defined for children currently in secondary school (S7 to S9, SH10 to SH12) of secondary school age (12-17 years). Enrollment (gross) is defined for children currently in secondary school (S7 to S9 and SH10 to SH12) of all ages. Satisfaction is defined for children of all ages currently in secondary school who cited no problems with school. Tertiary school estimates are defined for children aged 18 to 24 years. Enrollment (net) is defined for children currently in University, Vocational, Technical training and Technical of school age (18-24 years). Enrollment (gross) is defined for children currently in University, Vocational, Technical training and Technical of all ages. Overall Enrollment (net) is defined for children currently in school of school age (6-24 years). Overall Enrollment (gross) is defined for children currently in school of all ages. HEALTH Access is defined for persons less than 5km from a health facility. Need is defined for persons sick or injured in the four-week period preceding the survey. Use is defined for persons who consulted a health practitioner in the four-week period preceding the survey. Satisfaction is defined for persons who consulted a health practitioner in the four week period preceding the survey who cited no problems. 8

13 HOUSEHOLD HEAD CHARACTERISTICS Household Head: Is defined as the person in the household recognized as the head by other household members. This is generally the person responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the household. In his/her absence, the person who takes charge of the household is considered a "temporary head". All household relationships are defined with reference to the head or temporary head. HOUSEHOLD AMENITIES AND ASSETS Improved water sources is defined as having piped water in the dwelling, public outdoor tap, and protected well. Improved sanitation is defined for households using a flush toilet (sewer or septic tank), covered pit latrine, Ventilated covered pit latrine (VIP). Improved means of waste disposal is defined for households that have their refuse collected or use a public dump. Non-wood fuel for cooking is the use of any fuel other than firewood and charcoal for cooking. ACCESS TO AMENITIES Access is having the nearest specified facility, i.e. primary school, secondary school, health facility, water source, telecommunication facility, public transport and food market, within 5km from the household. HOUSEHOLD PERCEPTIONS OF WELL-BEING Difficulty meeting food needs is defined for households that reported difficulty meeting food needs often or always. Household economic situation compared to one year ago: Worse is defined for households that replied much worse now or a little worse now; better is defined for households that replied a little better now or much better now. 9

14 Special Notes Concerning Survey All tables are by region and county unless otherwise specified in the title. Tables refer to 2010 survey unless specified. All percentages are weighted (grossed up) unless otherwise stated. To obtain national estimates, the sample figures had to be grossed up by the appropriate factor (weighting co-efficient). Because of the effects of rounding, percentages may not always add exactly to 100. For the same reasons estimated numbers may not add exactly to the estimated totals shown in the table. 0.0 means negligible " " or ".." means nil. Percentages add up to 100 unless otherwise stated. 24 Households members did not state their sex. Therefore, a total done reflecting sex may show slightly different results when compared to the aggregate where sex is not applied 23 (14 missing and 9 coded as 99) household members did not report ages. Therefore, a total done reflecting age may show slightly different results when compared ti the aggregate where age is not applied Missing information is not imputed. 10

15 Introduction Background However, it was recognized, that not all groups of the society had the same capacity and access to opportunities to deal with the effects of the adjustment process. Poverty is identified as one major factor why many people have little or no access to the basic amenities that are made available as a result of the interventions in the economy. Therefore, more reliable and timely statistical indicators were needed for monitoring poverty and the effects of various development policies, programmes and projects on living standards of the people. Such indicators were not only needed at the national level but at disaggregated levels and for various population sub-groups, especially given the recognition that district-level indicators are crucial for monitoring and evaluating poverty reduction efforts at the lower level. Objective of the Survey The main objectives were: - To provide simple indicators for monitoring poverty and the effects of development policies and programme on the welfare of Liberians. To provide reliable data on a timely basis for monitoring changes in the welfare status of households and various sub-groups of the population at the district level. To ensure rapid data capture, processing, tabulation and analysis. To ensure optimal precision by the use of as large a sample as is feasible given national statistical resource constraints and the need for rapid results in generating district-level indicators. To eliminate data entry bottlenecks through the use of scanning technique with Optical Character Recognition (OCR). Sample Design An updated list of Enumeration Areas is maintained at the LISGIS, with urban and rural demarcation for each county. Greater Monrovia, was separated from the rest of Montserrado County due to its peculiar socio-demographic characteristics. Enumeration areas were selected separately from the urban and rural listings for each county. At the first stage, the required number of EAs was selected in each stratum with probability proportional to size (PPS), where the measure of size is the number of households listed in the census. At the second stage, a fixed number of households (12) were taken by systematic sampling within each EA that was picked at the first stage. While the overall number of EAs has increased by just over 50 percent, there is a marked contrast in what has happened to urban and rural EAs: the number of urban EAs has almost trebled, while the number of rural EAs has increased by less than 10 percent. This increase in urban EAs is due mainly to two factors: first, the movement of people from rural to urban areas; and secondly, a change in the designation of what counts as an urban area. In the 1984 Census, urban areas in each county consisted mainly of the county capitals. For the 2008 Census, a much broader definition was used, with all settlements of 2000 or more persons being counted as urban. The ratio of urban to rural EAs has thus changed from 25:75 in 1984 to 46:54 in

16 It is also clear from the table that the trends have not been consistent across all counties. Only one county (Sinoe) saw a drop in the number of urban EAs it contains, whereas several other counties saw massive increases in the number of urban EAs. Survey Instruments The Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire (CWIQ) 2010 adopted a house-based questionnaire which consists of four (4) double-sided pages. To ensure concise responses for the interviews, pre-coded multiple-choice response questions were used. The questionnaire was designed based on eleven (11) distinct modules. These include:- Background characteristics of household members Education Health Employment Household Assets Household Amenities Poverty Predictors (based on expenditure on key basic items) Child Anthropometry Subjective Well-being Violence, Crime and Safety Communication 12

17 Field Organization Training Field staff The training of interviewers was guided by an interviewer s manual. This involved comprehensive and systematic explanations on: the structure and content of the survey questionnaire; basic concepts and definitions to be applied in the execution of the Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIQ) survey data collection exercise; interactive discussions; simulated field trials; mock interviews and how to shade a bubble or print (write) numbers in the scannable CWIQ questionnaire. Participants were also trained in the techniques to be used in weighing and measuring children. Scanning Officers/assistants The scanning officers and assistants received additional training on the use of scanners to capture the field returns and to use the Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIQ) application for data processing. The officers were taken through the process of developing the scannable questionnaire, data scanning, editing, validation, dismantling and reassembling the scanner, replacement of expendable parts and daily routine maintenance of the scanning equipment. The assistants were trained further on the preparation and scanning of questionnaires from the field as well as archiving of the scanned questionnaires to facilitate easy retrieval. Fieldwork The data collection exercise for the main survey commenced on 10th February and ended on 22nd April Sixty-one teams were involved in the fieldwork which comprised a team of one supervisor, three interviewers and one driver. In addition, there were two standby supervisors and six interviewers. As a quality control measure and also boost the morale of the field staff, both scheduled and unannounced extended/extensive field trips were made by the senior project management personnel to check on the logistics, quality and progress of work. Data Capture and Processing The survey methodology used a technique of optical character reading that permitted fast processing of data and timely release of results. High-speed scanners and a software known as Teleform were used to automate the entire process of questionnaire design, collection, evaluation, validating and storage of the data. Scanning of the CWIQ field returns extended beyond the planned 12-week duration due to, the following reasons: - The two industrial scanners that had been rehabilitated for the CWIQ data capture could not be utilized due to initial difficulties experienced in calibrating the equipment. As a result, the entire scanning of the field returns had to rely on two desktop high speed scanners that had been used for the CWIQ training workshops. However, the performance of one of the scanners reduced drastically as a result of excessive workload of approximately 12 hours of scanning each day. It had to be removed from the scanning operations after the 12th week and having to rely on one scanner for the rest of the data capture. Finally data capture and processing was completed by the end of June 2003 and a clean CWIQ data set was ready for tabulation and analysis. 13

18 The data capture and processing of the CWIQ survey data used the following software: - (a) Teleform Automated data capture system with three modules DESIGNER: This is used in designing the CWIQ questionnaire as well as setting export routines. For converting the questionnaires to electronic images and subsequently evaluating the images. The data evaluated okay are subsequently sent to the target database or system for further processing. VERIFIER: Used to manually correct or confirm characters or digits that the reader could not interpret or recognized. It was also used to commit batches that have been evaluated as okay. (b) Microsoft Access CWIQ has three databases all designed in Microsoft Access: CWIQTem.mdb - Temporarily stores the data once it is exported from Teleform. RawData.mdb - Used as a work database where the data is cleaned or validated. Data.mdb - The main database used to generate tables. (c) Microsoft Excel Used to prepare the final output tables for the CWIQ report. (d) CWIQ Application The main programme used for data processing. It was developed in Microsoft Access with Visual Basic applications. The CWIQ application has three phases: - Conversion/transfer of Teleform data to the temporary database. Data validation and error correction. Tabulation The questionnaires were processed in batches with questionnaires from each Enumeration Area (EA) being considered as a single batch. This made it easier to manage the image and also allow the operator to capture all the necessary information about an EA. Editing took three different forms:- Manual editing was carried out to ensure that the reference number which was composed of the EA number, Household number and Questionnaire number, was correct and that it was printed out on all pages on the set of questionnaire. On-line editing with Teleform application. Mandatory fields that the scanner could not read or accept were held on the screen for verification and correction by the data capture assistant. Automatic correction was done for some selected fields by the CWIQ application based on some validation rules within the system. 14

19 Table 1.1 Sample Size for the Liberia Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIQ) Survey 2010 No. of Clusters No. of Households Number of Respondents Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total LIBERIA ,901 3,089 5,990 14,862 15,920 30,782 Greater Monrovia , ,962 North Central ,082 2,475 3,223 5,698 Bong ,357 2,039 Lofa ,730 Nimba ,929 North Western ,027 1,758 3,173 4,931 Bomi ,205 1,824 Grand Cape Mount ,088 1,862 Gharpolu ,245 South Central ,103 2,500 3,059 5,559 Grand Bassa ,367 Margribi ,090 1,812 Montserrado ,153 1,227 2,380 South Eastern A ,080 2,675 2,932 5,607 Grand Gedeh , ,959 Rivercess ,344 1,552 Sinoe ,087 1,009 2,096 South Eastern B ,086 2,492 3,533 6,025 Grand Kru ,242 1,922 Maryland , ,017 River Gee ,427 2,086 15

20 Table 2.1 Percentage Distribution of Population by Sex Male Female N N Percent N Percent Sex ratio (males to females) LIBERIA 3,693,135 1,819, ,873, Rural 2,005,021 1,003, ,001, Urban 1,688, , , Greater Monrovia 1,005, , , North Central 1,127, , , Bong 378, , , Lofa 284, , , Nimba 464, , , North Western 323, , , Bomi 105,550 54, , Grand Cape Mount 129,275 64, , Gharpolu 88,395 47, , South Central 652, , , Grand Bassa 238, , , Margribi 225, , , Montserrado 187,686 91, , South Eastern A 310, , , Grand Gedeh 126,332 65, , Rivercess 77,298 39, , Sinoe 106,744 52, , South Eastern B 274, , , Grand Kru 60,018 30, , Maryland 137,217 68, , River Gee 76,780 40, , Table 2.2 Percentage Distribution of Households by Household Composition (size) N persons persons persons persons Mean Household Size LIBERIA 741, Rural 402, Urban 339, Greater Monrovia 208, North Central 219, Bong 70, Lofa 60, Nimba 89, North Western 68, Bomi 21, Grand Cape Mount 25, Gharpolu 21, South Central 134, Grand Bassa 55, Margribi 46, Montserrado 32, South Eastern A 60, Grand Gedeh 27, Rivercess 15, Sinoe 18, South Eastern B 50, Grand Kru 9, Maryland 27, River Gee 13,

21 Table 2.3 Percentage Distribution of Population Structure by Broad Age-groups 0-14 years years 65+ years N Percent N Percent N Percent LIBERIA 3,693,916 1,568, ,013, , Rural 2,004, , ,050, , Urban 1,689, , , , Greater Monrovia 1,005, , , , North Central 1,128, , , , Bong 379, , , , Lofa 284, , , , Nimba 464, , , , North Western 323, , , , Bomi 105,515 49, , , Grand Cape Mount 129,166 54, , , Gharpolu 88,542 36, , , South Central 652, , , , Grand Bassa 239, , , , Margribi 226, , , , Montserrado 187,432 85, , , South Eastern A 310, , , , Grand Gedeh 126,163 56, , , Rivercess 77,243 37, , , Sinoe 106,713 51, , , South Eastern B 273, , , , Grand Kru 59,885 26, , , Maryland 137,281 60, , , River Gee 76,715 35, , , members did not specify age. N Table 2.4 Percentage Distribuition of Household Members Relationship to Head Agedependency ratio N Head Spouse Child Parent Sibling Other relative Not related LIBERIA 3,684, Rural 2,000, Urban 1,684, Greater Monrovia 1,002, North Central 1,124, Bong 378, Lofa 281, Nimba 463, North Western 322, Bomi 105, Grand Cape Mount 129, Gharpolu 88, South Central 652, Grand Bassa 239, Margribi 225, Montserrado 187, South Eastern A 309, Grand Gedeh 126, Rivercess 76, Sinoe 106, South Eastern B 273, Grand Kru 59, Maryland 137, River Gee 76,

22 Table 2.5 Percentage Distribution of Population by Sex, Broad Age-groups and Area of Residence Male Female N N Percent N Percent LIBERIA Total 3,690,936 1,818, ,872, Less than 4 years 568, , , years 534, , , years 463, , , years 368, , , years 310, , , years 281, , , years 252, , , years 234, , , years 190,484 92, , years 149,088 84, , years 100,437 57, , years 74,734 39, , years 49,926 25, , years and over 111,542 62, , RURAL Total 2,003,546 1,002, ,000, Less than 4 years 339, , , years 303, , , years 242, , , years 185,212 94, , years 153,161 70, , years 149,434 62, , years 126,104 56, , years 125,877 55, , years 100,731 48, , years 85,629 48, , years 53,247 30, , years 39,314 21, , years 31,229 15, , years and over 67,522 38, , URBAN Total 1,687, , , Less than 4 years 228, , , years 230, , , years 220, , , years 183,452 84, , years 157,484 74, , years 132,293 59, , years 126,122 57, , years 108,910 52, , years 89,753 44, , years 63,459 36, , years 47,190 27, , years 35,421 18, , years 18,697 10, , years and over 44,020 24, , members did not specify age. 18

23 Table 2.6 Percentage Distribution of Population (population pyramid) by Sex, Broad Age-groups and Area of Residence Total Male Female N Percent N Percent N Percent LIBERIA Total 3,690, ,818, ,872, Less than 4 years 568, , , years 534, , , years 463, , , years 368, , , years 310, , , years 281, , , years 252, , , years 234, , , years 190, , , years 149, , , years 100, , , years 74, , , years 49, , , years and over 111, , , RURAL Total 2,003, ,002, ,000, Less than 4 years 339, , , years 303, , , years 242, , , years 185, , , years 153, , , years 149, , , years 126, , , years 125, , , years 100, , , years 85, , , years 53, , , years 39, , , years 31, , , years and over 67, , , URBAN Total 1,687, , , Less than 4 228, , , years 230, , , years 220, , , years 183, , , years 157, , , years 132, , , years 126, , , years 108, , , years 89, , , years 63, , , years 47, , , years 35, , , years 18, , , years and over 44, , , members did not specify age. 19

24 Table 2.7 Percentage Distribution of Population (10+ years) by Marital Status Married N Never married monogamous Married polygamous Living together Divorced/ separated Widowed LIBERIA 2,559, Rural 1,345, Urban 1,214, Greater Monrovia 750, North Central 761, Bong 246, Lofa 195, Nimba 319, North Western 216, Bomi 68, Grand Cape Mount 87, Gharpolu 60, South Central 444, Grand Bassa 162, Margribi 157, Montserrado 124, South Eastern A 201, Grand Gedeh 83, Rivercess 47, Sinoe 70, South Eastern B 184, Grand Kru 39, Maryland 94, River Gee 50, Table 2.8 Percentage Distribution of Children (0-17 years) by Orphaned and Father Living at Home Father alive Father living in household N Yes No Don't know N Yes No LIBERIA 1,771, ,659, Rural 984, , Urban 787, , Greater Monrovia 449, , North Central 536, , Bong 179, , Lofa 129, , Nimba 227, , North Western 153, , Bomi 54, , Grand Cape Mount 59, , Gharpolu 39, , South Central 330, , Grand Bassa 118, , Margribi 115, , Montserrado 96, , South Eastern A 160, , Grand Gedeh 62, , Rivercess 40, , Sinoe 57, , South Eastern B 141, , Grand Kru 30, , Maryland 70, , River Gee 40, ,

25 Table 2.9 Percentage Distribution of Children (0-17 years) by Orphaned and Mother Living at Home Mother alive Mother living in household N Yes No Don't know N Yes No LIBERIA 1,753, ,693, Rural 975, , Urban 777, , Greater Monrovia 444, , North Central 528, , Bong 177, , Lofa 127, , Nimba 223, , North Western 151, , Bomi 54, , Grand Cape Mount 60, , Gharpolu 37, , South Central 327, , Grand Bassa 116, , Margribi 115, , Montserrado 96, , South Eastern A 159, , Grand Gedeh 62, , Rivercess 39, , Sinoe 57, , South Eastern B 141, , Grand Kru 30, , Maryland 70, , River Gee 40, , Table 2.10 Percentage Distribution of Children (0-17 years) by Orphanedhood Father dead Mother dead Parents living or dead N Yes N Yes N Both living Both dead Either dead LIBERIA 1,771, ,753, ,749, Rural 984, , , Urban 787, , , Greater Monrovia 449, , , North Central 536, , , Bong 179, , , Lofa 129, , , Nimba 227, , , North Western 153, , , Bomi 54, , , Grand Cape Mount 59, , , Gharpolu 39, , , South Central 330, , , Grand Bassa 118, , , Margribi 115, , , Montserrado 96, , , South Eastern A 160, , , Grand Gedeh 62, , , Rivercess 40, , , Sinoe 57, , , South Eastern B 141, , , Grand Kru 30, , , Maryland 70, , , River Gee 40, , ,