COMMUNITY AND HOUSEHOLD SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM CHS POST-DISTRIBUTION MONITORING

COMMUNITY AND HOUSEHOLD SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (CHS)/ POST-DISTRIBUTION MONITORING (PDM) OF THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME (WFP) TOPS/FSN Network Technical Meeting Maputo, 21 September 2011 Presented by: Lara Carrilho

Regional M&E framework

CHS/PDM: What is it? Regional/ Country Surveillance and monitoring system Since 2003 After harvest March/April 2 rounds x year 7 countries Lean season, Oct/Nov FDPs with food distribution 1 -2 M before Outputs and outcomes indicators Monitors food distribution process Provides information on food security Compares beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries Helps to understand the access to food by communities and households Gives early warning information

Main Objectives: Examine/monitor food assistance interventions CHS community perceptions Effect of food in the community and HH access to food: ration received by targeted livelihood trends use of food distributed Vulnerability to FN Security Shocks FCS CSI Food reserves PDM beneficiary satisfaction: beneficiary selection, distribution process, type of products and type of support

CHS/PDM: How do we do it? Methodology and Procedures QUANTITATIVE Use of questionnaires 1 controller and 3 enumerators/ team 1 community/day 900 - 1400 households 6 -10 interviews/enumerator/day Interview only head of HH or spouse Interview conducted in the household 20 min-1 H QUALITATIVE Focus Group Discussion Community representatives 1 h # communities and HH depending on size of interventions Random sampling of FDPs and HH 5 D training + 12 days data collection Use of PDA since 2005

Sections of CHS/PDM Questionnaire Demography Income, depth Agriculture/ animals Borrow money in past 3 M From whom? Relatives or friends? Expenditures To buy food? Assets Food stocks Food consumption Source of consumed food Markets Milling grain Shocks Food assistance Coping strategies Housing/water/ sanitation Beneficiaries selection Process/ targeting Preference of assistance: food, cash

CHS: Household Demographics Female headed size OVCs Sex of head HH with disable member Elderly headed ill for 3 M or more Migration Deaths in past 3 M Dependency ratio Chronically ill

CHS: Other indicators Trends of FCS: food diversity Income sources Trends of CSI Sources of livelihood % of HH that sold animals to buy food Cereals availability and sources Prices do cereals and animals # meals/day/age group School dropout Vulnerability characteristics

PDM: beneficiaries households % HH that received full ration % de HH that received food monthly % HH that received 1 -6 rations in past 6 M % women recipients Frequency of food distribution Duration of ration Efficiency of selection % food consumed/sold/exchanged % HH satisfied with selection process of beneficiaries Use of products Access to food by people most in need % HH satisfied with distributed food items Other assistance received by HH: education, clothes, agriculture inputs

PDM: Beneficiaries selection process for food distribution (from now on to also consider cash and voucher) % Ben and NBen that attended the meetings on food assistance % HH beneficiaries selected by community leaders % B and NB who consider that the most vulnerable HH were selected % B and NB that are satisfied with the selection process % communities with committees

Advantages and disadvantages of regional exercise • Aimed also to compare countries • Different seasons • Same period of data collection • Different activities • Same methodology and procedures • Different priorities • Similar/comparable sampling • Different procedures method • Different selection criteria • Use same indicators • Different implementers • Database with same codification • Different language- Moz required • Possibilities to add specific questions • Same report layout translation

Seasonal Calendar and critical periods Source: FEWS NET

CHS Geographical Coverage

CHS/PDM Products CHS Factsheet- 6 pages in Publisher • • • • Methodology and partners Highlights Food assistance Impact- coping strategies Contribution to HH income Livelihood strategies Children’s education HBC and OVC programs Shelter , water and sanitation Selection of beneficiaries Type of assistance preferred by HH Vulnerability characteristics Market access Dietary quality- food consumption score HH food sources PDM update- 2 pages • • • Methodologies and partners Access to food assistance Use of food Satisfaction -types of food Perceptions of the community about selection of beneficiaries Implications for programming CHS/PDM pp presentation Vigilância Comunitária e dos Agregados Familiares & Monitoria Pós Distribuição (CHS e PDM) CHS & PDM R 14 Maio / Junho de 2010

Use of CHS/PDM data • • • Internal corrective measures with partners Compare countries situation ( Southern Africa) WFP Global annual report (SPR) Country MDG progress report- FCS as proxy indicator of Caloric consumption indicator Once used for National VA reports Comparison analysis with PARP/PRSP consumption results UN M&E plan (in UNDAF) University Thesis Presentations in meetings

Strengths and Weaknesses • Strengths Regular data collection Trends analysis Training in each round Improving with lessons learned in previous rounds – Questionnaire adjusted to season – Informing partners on strengths and weaknesses of operations – Use of PDA: less errors, no nonanswered questions, less missing data, faster processing – – • Weaknesses Expensive Not statistically valid sample Changing questions Changing enumerators Changing sampled sites Results not easily applied to change programme – Results dissemination – Centralized processing/analyze and reporting – – –

Challenges Tailor CHS towards new transfer modality choices (food/cash/voucher) Incorporate linkages with market price monitoring system (from secondary sources such as SIMA or community tool) Maintain questions that are linked to decisions/actions Statistically valid sample at district level Better quality of data collected by teams Decentralization of data collection CHS data in national database ( ESDEM) Geographical targeting and better registration of FDPs # Ben Integrating in national exercises with subsamples valid at district levels Data from nat surveys only valid at prov level and released after several months Wider dissemination of findings CHS results to be more used by others Cost reduction

Relevant findings Asset and livestock ownership are the best determinants of vulnerability • • Lower CSI of HH with assets • more asset ownership and better food security Food assistance • • • significantly reduces the coping mechanisms for asset and livestock poor households • • improves diet diversity and reduces coping strategies of beneficiaries HH is the primary source of livelihood for beneficiaries Targeting exclusion and inclusion errors verified- to minimize the errors: – Social groups ( elderly, female, orphan, ) shouldn’t be the only vulnerability criteria – Involve more communities households members in the selection process

Relevant findings • Crop production and casual labor as important sources • Only 2% of sampled HH have received other assistance than food assistance • Community leaders are the main decision makers of selected beneficiaries/ weak participation of community members • Preference of food+ cash instead only food or only cash. Main reasons: food covers the HH needs/ risk of high food price and less food

Demographic data (ex: Round 12, April 2009) Beneficiaries HH Non– beneficiaries 5 4 % Dependency ratio 57% 52% Female headed HH 53% 42% Elderly headed HH 22% 18% HH with disabled member 17% 10% HH with orphans 40% 20% 62% 58% HH with chronically ill member 15% 7% HH asset poor 42% 43% HH size HH with member died past 3 M

Food Consumption Score (FCS): Ben and Non-Ben 70 Poor Consumption 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Acceptable Consumption 60 50 40 30 20 R 5 R 6 R 7 R 8 R 9 Ben R 10 R 11 R 12 R 13 R 14 R 15 10 0 N-Ben R 5 70 R 6 R 7 R 8 Ben R 10 N-Ben R 9 R 11 Borderline Consumption 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 R 5 R 6 R 7 R 8 Ben R 9 R 10 N-Ben R 12 R 11 R 13 R 14 R 15 R 12 R 13 R 14 R 15

Food Consumption Score (FCS) : % households with poor and borderline in central and southern provinces 2005 -2009 (Source: WFP CHS/PDM)

Food Consumption Score (FCS)/ provinces 40. 0 Poor Consumption 35. 0 Zambezia Tete Manica 25. 0 Sofala 20. 0 Inhambane 15. 0 Gaza Maputo 10. 0 Linear(Tete) 5. 0 0. 0 R 15 40. 0 Poor Consumption 35. 0 30. 0 25. 0 20. 0 15. 0 10. 0 5. 0 R 15 l ta To ut o za ap R 14 M ba m ha In R 13 Ga ne a fa l So ica M R 12 an te Te zia 0. 0 be R 14 m R 13 Za R 12 % of HHs 30. 0

Number of days foods consumed per week by type

Indication of Coping Strategy Index (CSI) 2005 -2009 (source: PMA CHS-PDM)

Coping Strategy Index (CSI) among countries

(Fontes: IOF, MINAG, VAC/SETSAN, Fews. Net, WFP)

Questions? Thank you