Resources in cash and in kind were obtained from the following sources. UNICEF HQ provided a grant of 80,000 USD, and a direct donation of 200,000 GBP was received from the Department for International Development UK (DFID UK). These funds were used to pay for the survey teams and were disbursed via two contracts, one to each
a
It is not possible to confirm this absolutely, but informal communication by the author with the survey teams confirmed that leakage of funds was less than in other projects.
161
entity implementing agency. Disbursement was based on outputs to ensure that each step was completed.
The UNICEF country office provided in-kind support with a survey leader (the author) at 50% of her full time equivalent work for a period of ten months. Other staff members were co-opted to assist with the sampling methodology, committee work, survey design and field monitoring.
At the national level, members of the various management and steering committees were unpaid, although unofficially an undisclosed amount of the funds assigned to the survey teams was diverted as ex gratia payments to some individual members of the committees to ensure that the process went smoothly.a
The use of two separate entity teams necessitated increased costs. There was duplication at each stage of the survey, including for questionnaire design and translation, training, fieldwork, data analysis and entry, survey management and steering committees. The sample size was larger than would otherwise have been needed, as it had to be representative at entity as well as national level. Two survey teams had their expenses covered to attend the three regional workshops. Additional time and financial resources were required to merge the two entity data sets. Three separate reports were produced, one at the national level and two at the entity level. This increased direct expenditure and the use of in kind resources including that of government and UNICEF staff time.
a
The issue of such payments is a complex one. Immediately after the war, many relief efforts, including those of the UN, make ex gratia payments or direct consulting fees to government officials and some officially pay “top up” salaries to government workers. UNICEF’s policy is not to do this, and to phase out any payments made during the emergency period. However, BiH officials had come to expect to be paid for what was seen as UN work and so phasing out payments was difficult. There was also a culture of blatant corruption, which at times also applied to requests for officially produced data. The view of local people was that such requests, and indeed the MICS survey itself, was additional to their normal work and required remuneration. This contrasted with UNICEF and the UN’s view that these surveys were the direct work of the government agencies to enable the country to report on its global agreements and to monitor the health and social status of children and women. Thus, the payment issue could and did distort local ownership. This is explored further in the discussion chapter.
162 3.21.5 Approach to sampling
An important feature of the national adaptation was the sampling. The sample for the BiH MICS 2000 survey was designed to provide statistically valid estimates of the selected indicators at the national level, for urban and rural areas, and for the two entities.a
Due to political and organisational constraints, the separately administered district of Brcko in the North East corner of the State was not included in the survey. The population of Brcko, estimated at 26,000 in 2000, was too small for the methodology of MICS to be used in a standalone survey. The survey tool did not allow for such a small number to be sampled separately and to produce valid rates for any of the indicators. The complex relationship between Brcko and the two entities (described in the introduction chapter) did not allow the population of Brcko to be included into the sample from either of the two entities. There was no impact statistically on the exclusion of Brcko from the data as the population was excluded from the denominator estimates.
The BiH census of March 1991 was the last population census before war broke out in 1992.bTable 10 below gives data from this census and population estimates for 1999, prepared by the two entity level statistical offices. As the best available official data, these were used for the basis of survey planning and sampling estimation for the BiH 2000 survey.
Table 10 The population of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991 and 1999
1991 Census Population estimate 1999*
Federation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina 2,717,868 2,259,902**
Republika Srpska 1,619,165 1,410,727***
Total 4,337,033 3,670,729
a As noted in the acknowledgements, Anthony ‘Tony” Turner provided assistance with the sampling
approach in this survey.
b
163
* Population estimates officially provided in 2000 by the Statistical Offices of FBIH ** and RS*** using projections from 1991 census, adjusted using local measures of migration and displacement and municipal registration data where available. These estimates are acknowledged as being approximate.
The populations of the two entities pre-war had to be estimated, as these exact boundaries did not exist pre-war. An estimated 2.2 million people from BiH became either refugees (1.2 million) or internally displaced (1 million) during the 1992-1995 war. By the end of the war, 90% of the pre-war Bosnian Serb population had left the area now called the FBiH and over 95% of pre-war Bosnian Croat and Bosnian Muslim inhabitants had left what is now the RS.(147) Population movement continued in the following decade.
The general approach to sampling is described in the MICS 2 survey manual. However the application of this approach was not straightforward in BiH, which had no existing sampling frame, widespread destruction of housing units during the war, and newly drawn internal boundaries.
In order to give results that would be statistically significant at entity level, the required
sample size was calculated using the least frequent variable selected for the survey, namely the DPT immunization coverage rate.
BiH had low reported birth rates after the war and had not experienced a post war birth ‘boom’. Due to the low rates of birth, infant mortality and maternal deaths, neither infant mortality nor maternal mortality were included in the survey.a The sample size calculation is explained in detail next.
The required sample size for BiH was derived by applying the following equation:b
n = 4 (r) (1-r) (f) (c) / (e2) (p) (nh )
a
The sample size required would have been four to five times greater than the sample size eventually used.
b
This calculation of sample-size for the BiH MICS 2000 survey is based on Annex VII of the UNICEF MICS 2 Manual.
164
n = 4 (0.6) (1-0.6) (1.75) (1.12) / (0.052) (0.02) (3.40) = 11.068, where
n (11.068 – rounded down to 11.000) is the required sample size (number of households at national level) and is calculated from:
4 is the normal distribution factor required to achieve a 95 percent level of