Table 3.
Did RA implementation differ from LG implementation?
|
Panel A. Information Dissemination | |||||||
|
Aggregate Indicator |
TV |
Radio |
Print |
Video |
Shop Sign |
Village Notice |
|
| (1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
(7) |
|
| Treated by RA | 0.05 (0.06) |
−0.002 (0.05) |
0.04 (0.03) |
0.04 (0.05) |
0.02 (0.01) |
0.03 (0.03) |
0.04 (0.04) |
| Mean DV | 0.48 | 0.40 | 0.14 | 0.17 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.12 |
| Observations |
635 |
635 |
635 |
635 |
635 |
635 |
635 |
|
| |||||||
|
Panel B. Local Engagement | |||||||
| Aggregate Indicator | Health Officer | Midwife | Health Post Volunteers | Village Office | |||
| (8) |
(9) |
(10) |
(11) |
(12) |
|||
| Treated by RA | 0.15 (0.06)∗∗ |
0.09 (0.06) |
0.06 (0.06) |
0.11 (0.06)∗ |
0.11 (0.04)∗∗∗ |
||
| Mean DV | 0.49 | 0.33 | 0.31 | 0.34 | 0.14 | ||
| Observations |
635 |
635 |
635 |
635 |
635 |
||
|
| |||||||
|
Panel C. Implementation Intensity | |||||||
| Aggregate Indicator | No. of Facilitators | Facilitator Charisma | No. of Visits | Rewards or Competition | |||
| (13) |
(14) |
(15) |
(16) |
(17) |
|||
| Treated by RA | 0.45 (0.23)∗ |
1.3 (0.77)∗ |
0.16 (0.15) |
0.42 (0.22)∗∗ |
−0.04 (0.11) |
||
| Mean DV | −0.07 | 3.19 | 2.8 | 0.91 | 0.10 | ||
| Observations |
635 |
635 |
635 |
635 |
635 |
||
|
| |||||||
|
Panel D. Community Participation | |||||||
|
Aggregate Indicator |
Heard about Program |
Know about Triggering |
Attended Triggering |
||||
| (18) |
(19) |
(20) |
(21) |
||||
| Treated by RA | 0.34 (0.13)∗∗ |
0.13 (0.06)∗∗ |
0.12 (0.05)∗∗ |
0.08 (0.05) |
|||
| Mean DV | 0.90 | 0.66 | 0.16 | 0.10 | |||
| Observations | 635 | 635 | 635 | 635 | |||
Notes: The sample is restricted to observations in villages which were treated. We report the coefficient on the indicator that the village was treated by a resource agency (RA). Information Dissemination Aggregate Indicator equals 1 if any of TV, radio, print media, video, notices in shop windows or village notice boards were used to disseminate information about the program, 0 otherwise. The other dependent variables in Panel A equal 1 if the respondent heard about the sanitation program from the specified source, and 0 otherwise. In Panel B, Local Engagement Aggregate Indicator equals 1 if the program engaged with any of village health officers, midwives, health post volunteers or village officials, 0 otherwise. The dependent variables in columns 9–12 equal 1 if the program engaged with the specified officers, 0 otherwise. Implementation Intensity Aggregate Indicator is an unweighted standardized index of the variables in columns 14–17. No. of Facilitators is the village average of respondents reports of how many facilitators were at the triggering; Facilitator Charisma is the village average of respondent rankings from 1 to 4 of how charismatic/persuasive the facilitators was; Number of visits is the village average of respondent reports of how many visits the facilitators made to the village, and Rewards or Competition equals 1 if one or more respondents in the village reported that the program involved rewards for villages becoming open defecation free and/or competitions between villages with regard to decreasing open defecation. Community Participation Aggregate Indicator is the sum of the dependent variables in columns 19–21 which are indicators of whether the household had heard of CLTS, knew about the triggering and had attended the triggering. Standard errors are clustered at the village level. ∗∗∗indicates significance at 1% level, ∗∗ at 5% level, ∗ at 10% level.