Do federal and state audits increase compliance with a grant program to improve municipal infrastructure (AUDIT study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Table 2 Example of random allocation for two states

PANEL A: generating the random allocation sequence of “Winning Digits”
Lottery 3/1/2011		Lottery 2/22/2011
Number	Prize (millions)	Number	Prize (millions)
23862	5	36625	5
19186	0.4
54595	0.2	Sort order (ascending)
02437	0.08	3
09502	0.08	6
42585	0.08	2
45776	0.08	5
PANEL B: randomization of municipalities
ID	State	Municipality	FISM transfer (millions)	“Ticket” Digits	ASF	EFSL
07022	Chiapas	Comitán de Domínguez	69	0-1
07028	Chiapas	Chenalhó	61	2-3	1
07076	Chiapas	Ocozocoautla de Espinosa	68	4-5		1
07092	Chiapas	San Cristóbal de Las Casas	65	6-7
07111	Chiapas	Tecpatán	59	8-9
08012	Chihuahua	Carichí	12	0-1
08021	Chihuahua	Delicias	15	2-3	1
08030	Chihuahua	Guazapares	11	4-5
08032	Chihuahua	Hidalgo del Parral	13	6-7
08066	Chihuahua	Uruachi	13	8-9		1

The sequence of random numbers from Panel A is: 23862, 19186, 54595, 42585, 02437, 45776, 09502. We use the first 17 winning digits to allocate one municipality by state to an audit by ASF. For example, the first winning digit in the random sequence is a 2. Because Chenalhó was allocated that “ticket” (see Panel B, Digits column), it is selected to be audited by ASF. The second winning digit in the random sequence is a 3, and so Delicias is selected, and so on for the remaining 15 states. To allocate EFSL we begin at the top again, starting with the 18^th digit in the random sequence, a 5. Accordingly, Ocozocoautla de Espinosa is allocated to EFSL, and so on. Had the 18^th digit been a 2 or a 3, we would have skipped that digit, moved to the next digit different from 2 or 3, and used that digit to allocate the first municipality to EFSL. One municipality cannot be assigned to both ASF and EFSL.

ISSN: 1471-2458