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

VAC/MExternal Process, with WFP as an actor

Esimtate number of people in need and the quanitity of food needed

WFP PROGRAMMINGCHS/PDM/OUTPUTS

VAC/M REPORTS

OutputMonitoring

Output ReportsConfirms receipt, number of people and

quantities of food delivered

CHS/PDM ReportsEffect on short and longer-term food availability

and access

Post Distribution Monitoring

Community and Household

Surveillance System

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

based on needs identified in the VAC

POST DISTRIBUTIONCONDUCT HH SURVEY

M&E and VAMTECHNICAL SUPPORT FROM VAM TO M&E IN

DEVELOPING AND DESIGNING THE M&E SYSTEM

Regional M&E framework

CHS/PDM: What is it?Regional/ Country

Surveillance and monitoring system

2 rounds x yearSince 2003

Lean season, Oct/Nov

After harvest March/April

7 countries

Provides information

onfood security

Compares beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries

Gives early warning information

Helps to understand the access to food by

communities and households

Outputs and outcomes indicators

Monitors food distributionprocess

FDPs with food distribution 1-2 M before

Vulnerability to FN Security

use of food distributed

Effect of food in the community and HH

CHS PDM

livelihood trends

community perceptions

access to food: ration received by targeted

beneficiary satisfaction: beneficiary selection, distribution process,type of products and

type of support

Main Objectives: Examine/monitorfood assistance interventions

ShocksCSI

FCS

Food reserves

CHS/PDM: How do we do it?Methodology and Procedures

900- 1400 households

20 min-1 H

1 community/day

Interview only head of HH or spouse 5 D training + 12 days data collection

6-10 interviews/enumerator/day

1 controller and 3 enumerators/ team

Use of questionnaires

QUALITATIVE

Random sampling of FDPs and HH

Use of PDA since 2005

QUANTITATIVE

Focus Group Discussion

1hCommunity representatives

# communities and HH depending on size of interventions

Interview conducted in the household

Sections of CHS/PDM Questionnaire

Demography

ShocksFood consumption

Beneficiaries selection Process/ targeting

Food assistance

Housing/water/sanitation

Milling grainPreference of assistance:

food, cash

Agriculture/animals

Coping strategies

Markets

Income, depth

Expenditures

AssetsFood stocks

Source of consumedfood

Borrow money in past 3M

From whom? Relatives or friends?

To buy food?

CHS: Household Demographics

size Female headed

Elderly headed

OVCs

ill for 3 M or moreHH with disable

member

Dependency ratio Chronically ill

Sex of head

Deaths in past 3 M

Migration

CHS: Other indicators

Income sources

Cereals availability and sources

School dropout

Prices do cereals and animals

# meals/day/age group

Trends of FCS: food diversity Trends of CSI

Sources of livelihood

Vulnerability characteristics

% of HH that sold animals to buy food

PDM: beneficiaries households

Other assistance received by HH: education, clothes, agriculture inputs

% HH that received 1-6 rations in past 6M% women recipients

% de HH that received food monthly

Efficiency of selection

Access to food by people most in need

Use of products% HH

satisfied with distributed food items

% HH that received full ration

Frequency of food distribution % food consumed/sold/exchanged

Duration of ration % HH satisfied with selection process of beneficiaries

PDM: Beneficiaries selection process for food distribution (from now on to also consider cash and voucher)

% communities with committees

% B and NB who consider that the most vulnerable HH were selected

% HH beneficiaries selected by community leaders

% Ben and NBen that attended the meetings on food assistance

% B and NB that are satisfied with the selection process

Advantages and disadvantages of regional exercise

• Aimed also to compare countries

• Same period of data collection

• Same methodology and procedures

• Similar/comparable sampling method

• Use same indicators

• Database with same codification

• Possibilities to add specific questions

• Same report layout

• Different seasons

• Different activities

• Different priorities

• Different procedures

• Different selection criteria

• Different implementers

• Different language- Moz

required translation

Seasonal Calendar and critical periodsSource: FEWS NET

CHS Geographical Coverage

CHS/PDM ProductsCHS 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 R14 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 non-

answered 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

Geographical targeting andbetter registration of FDPs # Ben

Decentralization of data collection Wider dissemination of findings

Cost reduction

Statistically valid sample at district level

Better quality of data

collected by teams

Tailor CHS towards new transfer modality choices (food/cash/voucher)

CHS data in national database ( ESDEM)CHS results to be more used

by others

Maintain questions that are linked to decisions/actions

Data from nat surveys only valid at prov level and released after several months

Integrating in national exercises with subsamples valid at district levels

Incorporate linkages with market price monitoring system (from secondary sources such as SIMA or community tool)

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

• improves diet diversity and reduces coping strategies of beneficiaries HH

• significantly reduces the coping mechanisms for asset and livestock poor households

• 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

HH size 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%

HH with member died past 3M

62% 58%

HH with chronically ill member

15% 7%

HH asset poor 42% 43%

Food Consumption Score (FCS): Ben and Non-Ben

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

Number of days foods consumed per week by type

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

rural peri-urban rural peri-urban rural peri-urban rural peri-urban

Zambézia Tete Manica Sofala

days

per

wee

k

maize

other cereals

Vit A tubers

other tubers

sugar

beans & peas

nuts

leafy greens

other vegetables

fruits

red meat

sea food

oils & fats

FCS by ben status and country

0

5

10

15

20

25

Zambia Mozambique Malaw i Lesotho Sw aziland

beneficiary non-beneficiary

0

20

40

60

80

100

Oct 03

Mar 04

Oct 04

Mar 05

Oct 05

Mar 06

Oct 06

Mar 07

Oct 07

Mar 08

Oct 08

Mar 09

Oct 09

Mar 10

Oct 10

Trends in Coping Strategies Index - Mozambique

Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries

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

Coping Strategy Index (CSI) among countries

0102030405060708090

100

CS

I

Rd1 Rd2 Rd3 Rd4

(Fontes: IOF, MINAG, VAC/SETSAN, FewsNet, WFP)

Questions?

Thank you