Improving housing conditions: labelled loans in Kenya and Uganda

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theory of change. Source: Own representation.

Figure 2. Evaluation sites that were selected to be part of this study. Source: Own representation.

Figure 3. Timeline. Source: Own representation.

Table 1. Household balancing (baseline values).

	Kenya				Uganda
	Treatment mean	Comparison mean	p-Value		Treatment mean	Comparison mean	p-Value
Female	1	0.99	0.349		0.29	0.24	0.144
Age	42.09	40.31	0.262		39.69	38.48	0.14
Secondary school or more	0.26	0.25	0.751		0.71	0.66	0.538
Married	0.83	0.81	0.384		0.8	0.84	0.064*
Household size	4.69	4.45	0.652		4.98	5.45	0.358
Has children	0.77	0.79	0.81		0.72	0.74	0.68
Subsistence farmer	0.31	0.39	0.501		0.1	0.16	0.087*
Businessperson	0.51	0.47	0.691		0.38	0.33	0.493
Food expenses (z-score)	0.01	−0.01	0.902		0.03	−0.04	0.454
Owns cell phone	0.96	0.94	0.287		0.88	0.89	0.873
Owns radio	0.77	0.78	0.935		0.8	0.75	0.207
Owns television	0.31	0.34	0.56		0.73	0.5	0.014**
Owns fridge	0.03	0.03	0.919		0.25	0.13	0.004***
Owns motorcycle	0.27	0.21	0.113		0.23	0.26	0.603
Owns livestock	0.96	0.88	0.003***		0.6	0.66	0.391
Owns land	0.84	0.7	0.018**		0.52	0.52	0.968
Owns house	0.93	0.81	0.033**		0.71	0.66	0.271
Years lived in house	11.78	11.38	0.699		6.73	8.29	0.012**
Dwelling age	10.83	11.3	0.781		7.26	8.99	0.019**
Dwelling age missing	0.05	0.12	0.054*		0.14	0.17	0.523
Observations		1,546				1,474
F-Statistic	8.48					9.23
p-Value	0					0

Notes: To proxy for income, we look at the standard score of an important expenditure category that is food and drinks (excluding alcohol). The z-score is calculated using the subsample mean in each country. The p-Value indicates tests on differences in means between the treatment and comparison group. Robust standard errors are clustered at the branch level. The F-statistic provides an omnibus test of balance.

Table 2. Balance across branches.

	Sample mean	Treatment mean	Comparison mean	Difference in means	p-Value	SDIFF
	Kenyan branches (N = 8)
Client size	6247.50	7270.75	5224.25	2046.500	0.302	0.798
No. credit officers	6.75	7.50	6.00	1.500	0.458	0.560
Loan book (ln)	11.26	11.59	10.94	0.646	0.168	1.109
Outstandings	2.61	2.76	2.46	0.305	0.349	0.787
per client (ln)
	Ugandan branches (N = 17)
Client size	3401.41	4890.56	1726.13	3164.431	0.002	1.821
No. credit officers	9.29	13.67	4.38	9.292	0.000	2.104
Loan book (ln)	16.25	16.83	15.61	1.223	0.024	1.206

Notes: Monetary values are shown in their local currency and transformed to the natural logarithm (ln). Normalised differences were calculated using the following equation: $SDIFF=\frac{\bar{X}{|}_{T=1-}\bar{X}{|}_{T=0}}{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{v}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}(X){|}_{T=1}+\mathrm{v}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}(X){|}_{T=0}}{2}}}$

While there is no empirical evidence to support the use of any particular cutoff point to define imbalance, Imbens (2015) suggests an arbitrary cut-off of 0.3.

Table 3. Probit regression of loan take-up on baseline characteristics (treatment sample only).

	Kenya			Uganda
	Coefficient		p-Value	Coefficient		p-Value
Has children	0.023		0.401
Owns motorcycle	0.014		0.711
Owns livestock	0.173		0.161
Owns land	0.064**		0.037
Owns house	0.110*		0.077	0.111**		0.030
Years lived in house	0.005		0.226	−0.006*		0.053
Dwelling age	−0.007		0.117	−0.002		0.109
Dwelling age missing	−0.110*		0.093	−0.016		0.823
Female				−0.094***		0.000
Age				0.003**		0.024
Married				−0.017		0.583
Food expenses (z-score)				0.060**		0.013
Subsistence farmer				−0.003		0.938
Owns livestock				−0.095***		0.006
Owns television				0.142***		0.000
Owns fridge				0.021		0.633
Observations		633			581
Pseudo R^2		0.050			0.160

Notes: The table reports marginal effects of probit regressions with standard errors clustered at the branch level. The outcome variable is an indicator equal to one if the person has taken out the HMF product at one of our partner banks. Households from comparison branches are excluded from this analysis.

Figure 4. Propensity scores histograms of adopters and comparison households. Adopters are households in treatment branches that took up the product, while comparison households are existing clients in non-treated branches.

Table 4. Pre- and post-matching balancing.

	Treatment branches		Comparison branches
	Adopters	Non-adopters	Comparison HHs	Hypothetical adopters	Adopters vs. comparison HHs	Adopters vs. hypothetical adopters
				Kenya
Has children	0.78	0.75	0.80	0.81	0.787	0.459
Owns motorcycle	0.28	0.23	0.21	0.23	0.108	0.369
Owns livestock	0.98	0.91	0.90	0.98	0.000	0.630
Owns land	0.86	0.76	0.70	0.79	0.018	0.319
Owns house	0.95	0.84	0.83	0.94	0.021	0.810
Years lived in house	11.97	12.24	11.52	11.89	0.704	0.941
Dwelling age	10.70	12.21	11.60	11.86	0.658	0.906
Dwelling age missing	0.04	0.08	0.10	0.06	0.102	0.497
Observations	520	113	610	610
				Uganda
Female	0.26	0.41	0.25	0.15	0.715	0.002
Age	39.72	39.17	38.37	39.33	0.132	0.649
Married	0.80	0.75	0.83	0.85	0.205	0.032
Food expenses (z-score)	0.11	−0.23	−0.06	0.11	0.162	0.757
Subsistence farmer	0.09	0.14	0.16	0.15	0.050	0.135
Owns livestock	0.56	0.75	0.66	0.55	0.233	0.943
Owns television	0.78	0.49	0.51	0.72	0.003	0.369
Owns fridge	0.26	0.15	0.12	0.17	0.002	0.072
Owns house	0.74	0.59	0.64	0.69	0.035	0.329
Years lived in house	6.35	8.07	7.96	6.93	0.011	0.079
Dwelling age	6.52	9.60	8.64	7.27	0.005	0.131
Dwelling age missing	0.14	0.20	0.17	0.17	0.478	0.526
Observations	485	96	518	518

Notes: Values are calculated using baseline survey data for Kenya and Uganda. The first four columns display means. The two last columns report p-values of OLS regressions of the listed baseline characteristic on an indicator for loan take-up with robust standard errors clustered at the branch level. Non-adopters in treatment branches are excluded from these regressions.

Table 5. Primary treatment effects in Kenya and Uganda.

	Kenya				Uganda
	Hypothetical adopters	DiD	p-Value DiD	adjusted p-Value	Hypothetical adopters	DiD	p-Value DiD	adjusted p-Value
Dwelling characteristics
Improved roof	1.00	0.018	0.004	0.020	0.96	0.014	0.582	1.000
Improved wall	0.49	0.085	0.050	0.200	0.92	0.052	0.208	1.000
Improved flooring	0.60	0.138	0.002	0.013	0.88	0.023	0.420	1.000
Number of rooms	3.20	0.311	0.059	0.200	4.22	0.070	0.822	1.000
Separate kitchen	0.81	0.057	0.224	0.447	0.74	0.111	0.108	0.643
Chimney	0.12	0.043	0.294	0.447	0.20	−0.011	0.847	1.000
Services & protection
Improved water	0.13	0.037	0.093	0.185	0.41	0.009	0.883	1.000
Improved toilet	0.62	0.037	0.713	0.713
Improved lighting	0.79	0.158	0.003	0.015	0.52	0.144	0.121	0.358
Improved cooking	0.05	0.021	0.017	0.053	0.01	−0.004	0.693	1.000
Rain protection	0.60	0.206	0.013	0.053	0.90	0.090	0.046	0.179
Satisfaction
Floor quality	0.21	0.224	0.000	0.002	0.43	0.243	0.019	0.056
Wall quality	0.23	0.240	0.005	0.016	0.44	0.264	0.010	0.050
Roof quality	0.29	0.234	0.002	0.010	0.43	0.273	0.011	0.050
House quality	0.25	0.176	0.041	0.082	0.44	0.236	0.031	0.061
Pride	0.70	0.011	0.848	0.847	0.63	0.033	0.686	0.685

Notes: For the DiD, we estimate a branch level fixed effects model comparing adopters in treatment branches to hypothetical adopters in comparison branches. All values are calculated using kernel propensity score weights. Robust standard errors are clustered at the branch level. Columns one and four report follow-up means for hypothetical adopters. All measures are self-reported and definitions are provided in Table A4.

Table 6. Secondary treatment effects in Kenya and Uganda.

	Kenya			Uganda
	Hypothetical adopters	DiD	p-Value DiD	Hypothetical adopters	DiD	p-Value DiD
Finances
Current finances to peers	3.47	−0.070	0.135	3.33	0.041	0.657
Future finances to peers	3.87	−0.026	0.833	3.61	0.290	0.006
Saved in last year	0.78	−0.051	0.584	0.58	0.064	0.443
Total credit (z-score)	0.07	−0.021	0.813	−0.05	0.065	0.348
Monthly income (z-score)	0.03	0.033	0.832	0.04	0.035	0.538
Health
Mental health	20.44	2.189	0.180	21.70	−1.234	0.220
Blocked nose	0.13	−0.022	0.696	0.04	−0.014	0.673
Runny nose	0.20	−0.034	0.719	0.16	−0.016	0.850
Persistent sneezing	0.10	−0.020	0.746	0.01	0.045	0.154
Sore throat	0.08	−0.039	0.319	0.01	0.013	0.395
Painful swallowing	0.04	0.012	0.434	0.01	0.002	0.852
Cough	0.26	−0.026	0.607	0.31	−0.020	0.783
Fever	0.23	0.013	0.892	0.23	−0.008	0.898
Short breath	0.03	−0.008	0.760	0.00	0.008	0.273
Itchy eyes	0.04	−0.018	0.505	0.01	−0.006	0.676
Diarrhoea	0.04	−0.016	0.275	0.04	−0.008	0.749
Worms	0.16	0.021	0.685	0.06	−0.007	0.927
No health issues	0.38	−0.006	0.944	0.42	0.094	0.130
Education
Days absent from school	1.75	0.164	0.662	2.20	0.267	0.636
School expenses (z-score)	−0.07	0.069	0.331	−0.02	−0.111	0.265
Hours spent for homework	1.38	−0.053	0.629	1.34	−0.010	0.951

Notes: For the DiD, we estimate a branch-level fixed-effects model comparing adopters in treat-ment branches to hypothetical adopters in comparison branches. All values are calculated using kernel propensity score weights. Robust standard errors are clustered at the branch level. Columns one and four report follow-up means for hypothetical adopters. All measures are self-reported and definitions are provided in Table A4.

Figure A1. Comparison of loan usage.

Table A1. Comparison of loans.

Loan characteristics	Kenya KWFT ‘Nyumba Smart Loan’	Uganda Centenary Bank ‘Cente-Home Loan’
Target market	Women entrepreneurs. Rural and peri-urban residents.	Existing and new bank clients. Engaged in micro enterprises, agriculture, and salaried employees such as civil servants. Rural and peri-urban residents.
Type of loan	Mainly group loans. Some individual loans.	Individual loans.
Loan size	USD 50 USD 10,000 Average: USD 700	USD 30 USD 8 275 Average: USD 2 000
Loan terms	Up to 60 months Average: 18 months	Up to 60 months Average: 24 months
Guarantees	Personal and group guarantees	Secured with the land on
/security	for loans under USD 5 000. Loans above this are secured with ‘tangible assets’ such as collateral and registered land.	which housing is developed, with or without registered title. Also secured with personal guarantees.
Interest rate	24% flat (36.8–41.70% APR) plus 2.25% insurance, on par with other microfinance products.	25% APR plus UGX 15,000 (USD 4) application fee and 2% commitment fee (9 points below microenterprise loans).

Table A2. ‘Perceived Stress Scale’ questions.

Positively worded questions

How often have you felt that you were on top of things?

How often have you felt confident your ability to handle your personal problems? How often have you felt that things were going your way?

How often have you been able to control irritations in your life?

Negatively worded questions

How often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?

How often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life? How often have you felt nervous and ‘stressed’?

How often have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them? How often have you found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do?

How often have you been angered because of things that were outside of your control?

Notes: Answers are given on a scale ranging from zero to four, with zero corresponding to ‘never’, one corresponding to ‘almost never’, two corresponding to ‘sometimes’, three corresponding to ‘fairly often’, and four corresponding to ‘very often’. Four of the questions are positively worded, and the other six are negatively worded. The PSS score is obtained by reversing the scores for the answers to the positively worded items and then summing up the scores across the answers of the ten items. Therefore, individual scores on the PSS can range from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating higher perceived stress. Scores ranging from 0 to 13 indicate low stress; scores ranging from 14 to 26 indicate moderate stress; and scores ranging from 27 to 40 indicate high perceived stress (Cohen et al., 1983).

Table A3. Sample attrition.

	(1)	(2)
	Kenya	Uganda
	Completed follow-up survey	Completed follow-up survey
	β /SE	β /SE
BAUA Programme	0.011	−0.050
	(0.047)	(0.041)
Age	0.005*	0.000
	(0.002)	(0.001)
Secondary school or more	0.024	−0.021
	(0.027)	(0.032)
Married	0.014	−0.072***
	(0.022)	(0.022)
Has children	0.075**	0.034
	(0.030)	(0.030)
Food expenses (z-score)	−0.002	0.009
	(0.011)	(0.011)
Owns livestock	0.135*	0.000
	(0.064)	(0.029)
Businessperson	0.004	−0.001
	(0.019)	(0.029)
Owns cell phone	0.023	−0.068
	(0.052)	(0.051)
Owns radio	0.056**	0.031
	(0.019)	(0.027)
Owns television	0.012	0.029
	(0.011)	(0.020)
Owns fridge	−0.027	−0.073*
	(0.063)	(0.039)
Owns land	−0.049**	0.048
	(0.021)	(0.031)
Owns house	0.028	−0.012
	(0.055)	(0.027)
Years lived in house	0.001	−0.002
	(0.002)	(0.002)
Dwelling age	−0.001	−0.001
	(0.001)	(0.002)
Dwelling age missing	−0.064	0.020
	(0.061)	(0.042)
Female		−0.018
		(0.029)
Constant	0.347**	0.841***
	(0.102)	(0.081)
Observations	1473	1398
R^2	0.037	0.018

Notes: * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 denote statistical significance. Robust standard errors clustered at the branch level in parenthesis.

Table A4. Variable descriptions.

Variable name	Survey question	Indicator definition
Dwelling characteristics
Improved roof	What is the main material used for the roof of your house?	Dummy = 1 if materials: bricks, concrete, iron, tiles
Improved walls	What is the main material used for the walls of your house?	Dummy = 1 if materials: bricks, concrete, tiles
Improved flooring	What is the main material used for the floor of your house?	Dummy = 1 if materials: bricks/concrete, carpet over concrete, tiles, wood, linoleum
Number of rooms	What is the total number of rooms in your house?	Winsorised and continuous variable
Separate kitchen	Do you have a separate room which is used as a kitchen?	Dummy = 1 if ‘Yes’
Chimney	Does your household have a chimney?	Dummy = 1 if ‘Yes’
Services & protection
Improved water	What is your main source of drinking water?	Dummy = 1 if water in the dwelling, water in the yard
Improved toilet	What type of toilet facility is available to your household?	Dummy = 1 if materials: flush toilet, chemical toilet, pit latrine with slap
Improved lighting	What is your main type of fuel for lighting?	Dummy = 1 if electricity or gas
Improved cooking	What is your main type of fuel for cooking?	Dummy = 1 if electricity, gas or solar energy
Rain protection	Is your household protected against water when it rains?	Dummy = 1 if ‘Yes’
How would you rate your satisfaction with … (4-point Likert scale)
Floor quality	… the floor quality in your household?	Dummy = 1 if ‘Satisfied’ or ‘Very satisfied’
Wall quality	… the wall quality in your household?	Dummy = 1 if ‘Satisfied’ or ‘Very satisfied’
Roof quality	… the roof quality in your household?	Dummy = 1 if ‘Satisfied’ or ‘Very satisfied’
Housing quality	… with the overall quality of your household?	Dummy = 1 if ‘Satisfied’ or ‘Very satisfied’
Pride	I would like to know if you are proud of your house.	Dummy = 1 if ‘Yes’
	For example, would you hold a social event at your house?
Finances
Current finances to peers Future finances to peers Saved in last year	How would you classify your household’s current financial situation compared to other households in your community: Much above average (5), above average (4), average (3), below average (2), or much below average (1)? In two years’ time, where do you expect your household’s financial situation to be in relation to the financial situation of other households in your community: Much above average (5), above average (4), average (3), below average (2), or much below average (1)? In the last 12 months, has your household made any savings?	Dummy = 1 if ‘Yes’ Dummy = 1 if 4 or 5 Dummy = 1 if 4 or 5
Total credit Monthly income	Loan values for other loan types In a typical month, what is the total monthly income coming into your household?	Z-score Z-score
Health: In the last six months, did a household member experience …
Mental health Blocked nose	See Table A2 Blocked nose problems faced by each member in a hh	Mean of all hh members (0 no one, 1 everyone experienced this)
Runny nose	Runny nose problems faced by each member in a hh	Mean of all hh members
Persistent sneezing	Sneezing problems faced by each member in a hh	Mean of all hh members
Sore throat	Sore throat problems faced by each member in a hh	Mean of all hh members
Painful swallowing	Painful swallowing problems faced by each member in a hh	Mean of all hh members
Cough	Cough problems faced by each member in a hh	Mean of all hh members
Fever	Fever problems faced by each member in a hh	Mean of all hh members
Headache	Headache problems faced by each member in a hh	Mean of all hh members
Short breath	Shortness of breath problems faced by each member in a hh	Mean of all hh members
Itchy eyes	Itchy and watery eyes problems faced by each member in a hh	Mean of all hh members
Nausea	Nausea problems faced by each member in a hh	Mean of all hh members
Vomiting	Vomitting problems faced by each member in a hh	Mean of all hh members
Rash	Rash problems faced by each member in a hh	Mean of all hh members
Diarrhoea	Diarrhoea problems faced by each member in a hh	Mean of all hh members
Worms	Pass any worms?	Dummy = 1 if ‘Yes’
No health issues	Did hh member experience no health problems?	Dummy = 1 if ‘Yes’
Education
Days absent from school School expenses	In the last six months, on average, how many days of school per month did your children miss? How much did you pay for you children’s last school term?	Mean of all children Z-score
Homework	How many hours of homework did your children do last night?	Mean of all children

Notes: Own representation based on baseline and follow-up instruments in Kenya and Uganda.

Table A5. Impacts on non-adopters in treatment branches.

	Kenya			Uganda
	Non-adopters mean	DiD	p-Value DiD	Non-adopters mean	DiD	p-Value DiD
Dwelling characteristics
Improved roof	1.00	0.002	0.295	0.92	0.010	0.787
Improved wall	0.50	−0.013	0.787	0.91	0.014	0.815
Improved flooring	0.62	−0.022	0.352	0.83	0.096	0.167
Number of rooms	3.14	−0.125	0.403	3.87	−0.332	0.202
Separate kitchen	0.78	−0.036	0.380	0.69	0.020	0.830
Chimney	0.12	−0.083	0.190	0.14	−0.001	0.993
Services & protection Improved water	0.14	−0.036	0.261	0.37	0.000	0.995
Improved toilet	0.62	0.137	0.262
Improved lighting	0.79	−0.048	0.124	0.44	−0.052	0.665
Improved cooking	0.06	−0.022	0.190	0.01	−0.019	0.342
Rain protection	0.59	−0.096	0.283	0.86	−0.107	0.142
Satisfaction Floor quality	0.22	−0.033	0.501	0.37	−0.152	0.268
Wall quality	0.24	−0.043	0.533	0.37	−0.174	0.068
Roof quality	0.30	−0.019	0.832	0.38	−0.204	0.046
House quality	0.26	0.014	0.874	0.38	−0.149	0.187
Pride	0.70	−0.016	0.826	0.60	−0.092	0.387

Notes: For the DiD, we estimate a branch level fixed effects model comparing non-adopters in treatment branches to hypothetical non-adopters in comparison branches. All values are calculated using kernel propensity score weights. Robust standard errors are clustered at the branch level. All measures are self-reported and definitions are provided in Table A4.

Table A6. Robustness: Dwelling characteristics.

Estimation method	unmatched	DiD	unmatched	DiD	matched	DiD : Kernel	matched	DiD: Threshold	matched	DiD: Radius caliper	matched	DiD: Nearest neighbour
	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value
Dep var								Kenya
Improved roof	0.033	0.099	0.033	0.100	0.018	0.004	0.040	0.098	0.023	0.006	0.022	0.008
Improved wall	0.097	0.014	0.097	0.014	0.085	0.050	0.109	0.012	0.078	0.072	0.093	0.065
Improved flooring	0.118	0.002	0.118	0.002	0.138	0.002	0.138	0.001	0.116	0.017	0.113	0.021
Number of rooms	0.323	0.084	0.323	0.085	0.311	0.059	0.385	0.064	0.293	0.055	0.291	0.039
Separate kitchen	0.079	0.151	0.079	0.152	0.057	0.224	0.092	0.122	0.069	0.308	0.088	0.244
Chimney	0.052	0.183	0.052	0.184	0.043	0.294	0.042	0.291	0.030	0.416	0.025	0.492
Observations	2484		2484		2140		2188		1532		1404
								Uganda
Improved roof	−0.005	0.865	−0.005	0.866	0.014	0.582	−0.006	0.829	0.031	0.291	0.031	0.293
Improved wall	0.007	0.880	0.007	0.881	0.052	0.208	0.018	0.716	0.038	0.380	0.036	0.394
Improved flooring	−0.009	0.797	−0.009	0.799	0.023	0.420	0.010	0.792	0.048	0.261	0.046	0.267
Number of rooms	0.153	0.579	0.153	0.581	0.070	0.822	0.081	0.778	0.068	0.864	0.078	0.843
Separate kitchen	0.110	0.150	0.110	0.152	0.111	0.108	0.142	0.054	0.051	0.395	0.043	0.489
Chimney	0.020	0.723	0.020	0.725	−0.011	0.847	0.019	0.733	0.011	0.881	0.006	0.938
Observations	2198		2198		2004		1912		734		728
Branch FE	No		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes
Household cov	No		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes
Housing cov	No		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes

Notes: Values are calculated using baseline and follow-up survey data for Kenya and Uganda.

Table A7. Robustness: Services & protection.

	unmatched	DiD	unmatched	DiD	matched	DiD: Kernel	matched	DiD: Threshold	matched	DiD: Radius caliper	matched	DiD: Nearest neighbour
Estimation method	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value
Dep var								Kenya
Improved water	0.039	0.124	0.039	0.125	0.037	0.093	0.039	0.126	0.048	0.051	0.039	0.072
Improved toilet	0.009	0.927	0.009	0.927	0.037	0.713	0.036	0.709	0.013	0.900	0.007	0.948
Improved lighting	0.137	0.005	0.137	0.005	0.158	0.003	0.158	0.004	0.158	0.009	0.173	0.005
Improved cooking	0.021	0.026	0.021	0.026	0.021	0.017	0.014	0.009	0.028	0.004	0.029	0.005
Rain protection	0.186	0.026	0.186	0.026	0.206	0.013	0.206	0.012	0.198	0.043	0.228	0.030
Observations	2484		2484		2140		2188		1532		1404
								Uganda
Improved water	−0.036	0.554	−0.036	0.557	0.009	0.883	−0.028	0.650	−0.014	0.859	−0.014	0.859
Improved lighting	0.118	0.215	0.118	0.217	0.144	0.121	0.124	0.190	0.169	0.024	0.167	0.025
Improved cooking	−0.004	0.643	−0.004	0.645	−0.004	0.693	−0.008	0.383	−0.043	0.165	−0.043	0.165
Rain protection	0.076	0.110	0.076	0.112	0.090	0.046	0.088	0.090	0.058	0.236	0.055	0.256
Observations	2189		2189		2004		1912		734		728
Branch FE	No		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes
Household cov	No		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes
Housing cov	No		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes

Notes: Values are calculated using baseline and follow-up survey data for Kenya and Uganda.

Table A8. Robustness: Satisfaction & pride.

	unmatched	DiD	unmatched	DiD	matched	DiD: Kernel	matched	DiD: Threshold	matched	DiD: Radius caliper	matched	DiD: Nearest neighbour
Estimation method	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value	Coeff	p-Value
Dep var								Kenya
Floor quality	0.185	0.006	0.185	0.006	0.224	0.000	0.219	0.001	0.233	0.000	0.220	0.001
Wall quality	0.208	0.018	0.208	0.018	0.240	0.005	0.243	0.007	0.239	0.001	0.229	0.004
Roof quality	0.195	0.009	0.195	0.009	0.234	0.002	0.240	0.002	0.216	0.007	0.203	0.007
Housing quality	0.140	0.111	0.140	0.112	0.176	0.041	0.175	0.057	0.180	0.075	0.190	0.079
Pride	0.009	0.870	0.009	0.871	0.011	0.848	0.005	0.936	0.017	0.799	−0.017	0.767
Observations	2484		2484		2140		2188		1532		1404
								Uganda
Floor quality	0.206	0.017	0.206	0.018	0.243	0.019	0.223	0.009	0.186	0.065	0.179	0.078
Wall quality	0.221	0.007	0.221	0.007	0.264	0.010	0.228	0.005	0.216	0.043	0.214	0.044
Roof quality	0.234	0.007	0.234	0.007	0.273	0.011	0.234	0.008	0.220	0.026	0.218	0.027
Housing quality	0.197	0.031	0.197	0.032	0.236	0.031	0.208	0.027	0.184	0.079	0.182	0.081
Pride	0.005	0.948	0.005	0.949	0.033	0.686	0.011	0.880	0.080	0.398	0.078	0.420
Observations	2189		2189		2004		1912		734		728
Branch FE	No		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes
Household cov	No		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes
Housing cov	No		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes

Notes: Values are calculated using baseline and follow-up survey data for Kenya and Uganda.

Table A9. Minimum detectable effects for dwelling characteristics.

	Sample mean	Standard deviation	Comparison mean	Intra-class correlation	MDE	MDE (%)
Dep var	Kenya
Improved roof	0.98	0.14	0.99	0.01	0.033	0.033
Improved wall	0.62	0.49	0.52	0.38	0.598	1.158
Improved flooring	0.55	0.49	0.55	0.03	0.190	0.347
Number of rooms	3.27	1.37	3.32	0.03	0.541	0.163
Separate kitchen	0.77	0.42	0.76	0.12	0.292	0.384
Chimney	0.13	0.33	0.09	0.09	0.200	2.243
	Uganda
Improved roof	0.94	0.24	0.94	0.10	0.107	0.114
Improved wall	0.93	0.26	0.93	0.06	0.093	0.100
Improved flooring	0.87	0.33	0.85	0.03	0.096	0.113
Number of rooms	3.88	2.00	3.88	0.06	0.742	0.191
Separate kitchen	0.69	0.46	0.70	0.00	0.073	0.104
Chimney	0.18	0.38	0.18	0.03	0.108	0.605

Notes: Values are calculated using baseline survey data. Minimum detectable effects (MDE) indicate the smallest change from baseline in percentage points using a two-sided test. In Kenya, the treatment sample has 4 cluster with 145 people each and the comparison group has 4 cluster with 193 people each. In Uganda, the treatment sample has 9 cluster with 67 people each and the comparison group has 8 cluster with 84 people each. The probability of making a false statement if a null hypothesis is rejected is 5% and the probability of making a false statement if the null is not rejected is 20%. The last column reports the size of that effect relative to the baseline sample mean in percent.

Imbens, G. W. 2015. “Matching Methods in Practice: Three Examples.” The Journal of Human Resources 50 (2): 373–419. doi:10.3368/jhr.50.2.373.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cohen, S., T. Kamarck, and R. Mermelstein (1983). A Global Measure of Perceived Stress, Journal of Health and Social Behavior pp. 385–396.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar