At the onset of the 2008-2009 global economic crisis, the Open Society Institute-Sofia and the World Bank partnered to implement Crisis Monitoring Survey (CMS). The CMS is a multi-topic household survey that followed three nationally representative cross-sections of about 2,400 households, including a panel of about 1,700 Bulgarian households, during February 2010, October 2010 and February 2011. The survey included a detailed income module, but no consumption module. It tracked the incidence of income shocks, the coping strategies used by affected households to mitigate the income losses, and the impact of public polices social protection in particular in alleviating the effects of the crisis. In particular, the survey investigated in some depth how households used the labor market to mitigate the impact of the crisis, whether formal social protection programs protected households against sliding into poverty, and the effectiveness of informal safety nets. Given the special need to study the more vulnerable ethnic minority Roma population, an independent "booster sample" of about 300 households was selected in settlements and neighborhoods identified as predominantly Roma. The first round of Crisis Monitoring Survey was conducted in February 2010. The data from this round is documented here.

At the onset of the 2008-2009 global economic crisis, the Open Society Institute-Sofia and the World Bank partnered to implement Crisis Monitoring Survey (CMS). The CMS is a multi-topic household survey that followed three nationally representative cross-sections of about 2,400 households, including a panel of about 1,700 Bulgarian households, during February 2010, October 2010 and February 2011. The survey tracked the incidence of income shocks, the coping strategies used by affected households to mitigate the income losses, and the impact of public polices social protection in particular in alleviating the effects of the crisis. In particular, the survey investigated in some depth how households used the labor market to mitigate the impact of the crisis, whether formal social protection programs protected households against sliding into poverty, and the effectiveness of informal safety nets. Given the special need to study the more vulnerable ethnic minority Roma population, an independent "booster sample" of about 300 households was selected in settlements and neighborhoods identified as predominantly Roma. The second round of Crisis Monitoring Survey was conducted in October 2010. The data from this round is documented here.

At the onset of the 2008-2009 global economic crisis, the Open Society Institute-Sofia and the World Bank partnered to implement Crisis Monitoring Survey (CMS). The CMS is a multi-topic household survey that followed three nationally representative cross-sections of about 2,400 households, including a panel of about 1,700 Bulgarian households, during February 2010, October 2010 and February 2011. The survey included a detailed income module, but no consumption module. It tracked the incidence of income shocks, the coping strategies used by affected households to mitigate the income losses, and the impact of public polices social protection in particular in alleviating the effects of the crisis. In particular, the survey investigated in some depth how households used the labor market to mitigate the impact of the crisis, whether formal social protection programs protected households against sliding into poverty, and the effectiveness of informal safety nets. Given the special need to study the more vulnerable ethnic minority Roma population, an independent "booster sample" of about 300 households was selected in settlements and neighborhoods identified as predominantly Roma. The third round of Crisis Monitoring Survey was conducted in February 2011. The data from this round is documented here.

Abstract

At the onset of the 2008-2009 global economic crisis, the Open Society Institute-Sofia and the World Bank partnered to implement Crisis Monitoring Survey (CMS). The CMS is a multi-topic household survey that followed three nationally representative cross-sections of about 2,400 households, including a panel of about 1,700 Bulgarian households, during February 2010, October 2010 and February 2011. The survey included a detailed income module, but no consumption module. It tracked the incidence of income shocks, the coping strategies used by affected households to mitigate the income losses, and the impact of public polices - social protection in particular - in alleviating the effects of the crisis. In particular, the survey investigated in some depth how households used the labor market to mitigate the impact of the crisis, whether formal social protection programs protected households against sliding into poverty, and the effectiveness of informal safety nets.

Given the special need to study the more vulnerable ethnic minority Roma population, an independent "booster sample" of about 300 households was selected in settlements and neighborhoods identified as predominantly Roma.

The third round of Crisis Monitoring Survey was conducted in February 2011. The data from this round is documented here.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• households,
• individuals

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Two samples were used in Crisis Monitoring Survey: main sample and booster sample.

The main sample was chosen in two stages.

First, the population was stratified by district (NUTS 3) and type of settlement. In Bulgaria, there are 28 administrative districts. For the type of settlement three categories were defined - rural, urban (with population under 50,000) and metropolitan (with population over 50,000). Bulgaria's capital, Sofia, is include in the metropolitan category. In this way 28 x 3=84 categories (strata) were defined and proportional allocation was made. The method of selecting settlements from each stratum is simple random sampling with replacement, weighted by the number of households in the settlement.

In the second stage, voting stations were chosen in each settlement. Voting stations were used as a type of cluster. Voting stations were selected with probability proportional to the number of voters in each station. In each cluster, (voting station), 20 household addresses were randomly selected from the list of all addresses in the station. The first 10 addresses, which had to be visited mandatorily, formed the main list. If there was a refusal in a household of the main list, this household had to be replaced with an address from the list of reserves (the last 10 addresses).

For the Roma booster sample, an expert database was used. It contained basic information for all segregated neighborhoods in the country like locality (district, municipality and settlement), an experts' approximation for the number of population, number of households, number of houses and other characteristics. The planned booster size sample was 300 households. Simple random sampling without replacement was used in segregated neighborhoods, weighted by their population. In this way, 30 segregated neighborhoods in 20 districts were selected. In each district, 10 randomly sampled households had to be interviewed. GPS sampling was used to identify households in each cluster.

In the third round, there were three types of addresses: - All the households from the first round, regardless if they were interviewed in the second, or not; - Addresses of the households only from the second wave; - Additional addresses to complete the list to 2,400 households.

The enumerator had to visit first households from the first round, then households that were visited only in the second round, and at last, if there were less than 10 interviews done in the cluster, to get addresses from the list with additional addresses.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The survey collected information about household demographics (roster), labor market participation and earnings, housing, durables, access to and receipts of social protection programs, informal safety nets and remittances, other income, credit, self-reported impact of the crisis, coping and mitigation mechanisms.

The Bulgaria Crisis Monitoring Survey combines modules that have been used in crisis surveys in a number of countries (including crisis-specific labor, credit, and coping strategies modules) with uniquely detailed modules on income and social assistance.

Response rate

In the third round, 1,689 households (71 percent of the initial population of 2,384 households) were interviewed for the third time.

Abstract

At the onset of the 2008-2009 global economic crisis, the Open Society Institute-Sofia and the World Bank partnered to implement Crisis Monitoring Survey (CMS). The CMS is a multi-topic household survey that followed three nationally representative cross-sections of about 2,400 households, including a panel of about 1,700 Bulgarian households, during February 2010, October 2010 and February 2011. The survey included a detailed income module, but no consumption module. It tracked the incidence of income shocks, the coping strategies used by affected households to mitigate the income losses, and the impact of public polices - social protection in particular - in alleviating the effects of the crisis. In particular, the survey investigated in some depth how households used the labor market to mitigate the impact of the crisis, whether formal social protection programs protected households against sliding into poverty, and the effectiveness of informal safety nets.

Given the special need to study the more vulnerable ethnic minority Roma population, an independent "booster sample" of about 300 households was selected in settlements and neighborhoods identified as predominantly Roma.

The first round of Crisis Monitoring Survey was conducted in February 2010. The data from this round is documented here.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• households,
• individuals

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Two samples were used in Crisis Monitoring Survey: main sample and booster sample.

The main sample was created in two stages.

First, the population was stratified by district (NUTS 3) and type of settlement. In Bulgaria, there are 28 administrative districts. For the type of settlement three categories were defined - rural, urban (with population under 50,000) and metropolitan (with population over 50,000). Bulgaria's capital, Sofia, is include in the metropolitan category. In this way 28 x 3=84 categories (strata) were defined and proportional allocation was made. The method of selecting settlements from each stratum is simple random sampling with replacement, weighted by the number of households in the settlement.

In the second stage, voting stations were chosen in each settlement. Voting stations were used as a type of cluster. Voting stations were selected with probability proportional to the number of voters in each station. In each cluster, (voting station), 20 household addresses were randomly selected from the list of all addresses in the station. The first 10 addresses, which had to be visited mandatorily, formed the main list. If there was a refusal in a household of the main list, this household had to be replaced with an address from the list of reserves (the last 10 addresses).

For the Roma booster sample, an expert database was used. It contained basic information for all segregated neighborhoods in the country like locality (district, municipality and settlement), an experts' approximation for the number of population, number of households, number of houses and other characteristics. The planned booster size sample was 300 households. Simple random sampling without replacement was used in segregated neighborhoods, weighted by their population. In this way, 30 segregated neighborhoods in 20 districts were selected. In each district, 10 randomly sampled households had to be interviewed. GPS sampling was used to identify households in each cluster.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The survey collected information about household demographics (roster), labor market participation and earnings, housing, durables, access to and receipts of social protection programs, informal safety nets and remittances, other income, credit, self-reported impact of the crisis, coping and mitigation mechanisms.

The Bulgaria Crisis Monitoring Survey combines modules that have been used in crisis surveys in a number of countries (including crisis-specific labor, credit, and coping strategies modules) with uniquely detailed modules on income and social assistance.

Response rate

The planned size of the main sample in the first round was 2,400 households, 2,384 households were interviewed. The planned size of the Roma booster sample was 300 households, 296 households were interviewed.

For each cluster, there was a list of 10 addresses that had to be visited by the interviewer and an additional 10 addresses in reserve. If any of the first 10 addresses did not exist, dwellings were locked for a long time or the people refused to be interviewed, the additional ones were used. According to instructions, the interviewer had to visit each address in the main list three times, unless the building (or apartment) was obviously uninhabited. The interviewer had to write down what happened at each visit to each address on the list. At addresses where the interview did not take place, the interviewer noted the reason. Once an interview was done, the questionnaire got an ID that showed whether the address was on the original list or not.

Abstract

At the onset of the 2008-2009 global economic crisis, the Open Society Institute-Sofia and the World Bank partnered to implement Crisis Monitoring Survey (CMS). The CMS is a multi-topic household survey that followed three nationally representative cross-sections of about 2,400 households, including a panel of about 1,700 Bulgarian households, during February 2010, October 2010 and February 2011. The survey tracked the incidence of income shocks, the coping strategies used by affected households to mitigate the income losses, and the impact of public polices - social protection in particular - in alleviating the effects of the crisis. In particular, the survey investigated in some depth how households used the labor market to mitigate the impact of the crisis, whether formal social protection programs protected households against sliding into poverty, and the effectiveness of informal safety nets.

Given the special need to study the more vulnerable ethnic minority Roma population, an independent "booster sample" of about 300 households was selected in settlements and neighborhoods identified as predominantly Roma.

The second round of Crisis Monitoring Survey was conducted in October 2010. The data from this round is documented here.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• households,
• individuals

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Two samples were used in Crisis Monitoring Survey: main sample and booster sample.

The main sample was created in two stages.

First, the population was stratified by district (NUTS 3) and type of settlement. In Bulgaria, there are 28 administrative districts. For the type of settlement three categories were defined - rural, urban (with population under 50,000) and metropolitan (with population over 50,000). Bulgaria's capital, Sofia, is include in the metropolitan category. In this way 28 x 3=84 categories (strata) were defined and proportional allocation was made. The method of selecting settlements from each stratum is simple random sampling with replacement, weighted by the number of households in the settlement.

In the second stage, voting stations were chosen in each settlement. Voting stations were used as a type of cluster. Voting stations were selected with probability proportional to the number of voters in each station. In each cluster, (voting station), 20 household addresses were randomly selected from the list of all addresses in the station. The first 10 addresses, which had to be visited mandatorily, formed the main list. If there was a refusal in a household of the main list, this household had to be replaced with an address from the list of reserves (the last 10 addresses).

For the Roma booster sample, an expert database was used. It contained basic information for all segregated neighborhoods in the country like locality (district, municipality and settlement), an experts' approximation for the number of population, number of households, number of houses and other characteristics. The planned booster size sample was 300 households. Simple random sampling without replacement was used in segregated neighborhoods, weighted by their population. In this way, 30 segregated neighborhoods in 20 districts were selected. In each district, 10 randomly sampled households had to be interviewed. GPS sampling was used to identify households in each cluster.

In the second round, six months later, all the 2,384 households in the main sample were visited again whether or not they agreed to take place in the survey again. To complete the list with households from second round to 2,400, some additional addresses were drawn out in the same sampling procedure, in the same clusters as in the first round. Therefore, in the second round, there were two types of households, taking place in the survey: first, these who were interviewed in the both rounds; second, these only from the second round (additional ones).

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The survey collected information about household demographics (roster), labor market participation and earnings, housing, durables, access to and receipts of social protection programs, informal safety nets and remittances, other income, credit, self-reported impact of the crisis, coping and mitigation mechanisms.

The Bulgaria Crisis Monitoring Survey combines modules that have been used in crisis surveys in a number of countries (including crisis-specific labor, credit, and coping strategies modules) with uniquely detailed modules on income and social assistance.

Response rate

In the second round, all 2,384 households from the first round were visited again. From this sample, 1,852 households (78 percent of the original respondents) were interviewed. The remaining 22 percent were completed with new addresses and each household that was not interviewed was replaced with a new one in the same cluster.