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 2 rounds x year Since 2003 Lean season, Oct/Nov After harvest March/April 7 countries Provides information on food 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 distribution process 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/monitor food assistance interventions Shocks CSI FCS Food reserves

CHS/PDM: How do we do it? Methodology and Procedures 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 1h Community representatives # communities and HH depending on size of interventions Interview conducted in the household

Sections of CHS/PDM Questionnaire Demography Shocks Food consumption Beneficiaries selection Process/ targeting Food assistance Housing/water/ sanitation Milling grain Preference of assistance: food, cash Agriculture/ animals Coping strategies Markets Income, depth Expenditures Assets Food stocks Source of consumed food 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 more HH 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 diversityTrends 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 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 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 and better 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 HHNon– beneficiaries HH size 54 % 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 (Source: WFP CHS/PDM)

Food Consumption Score (FCS)/ provinces

Number of days foods consumed per week by type

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

Coping Strategy Index (CSI) among countries

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

Questions? Thank you