BRACE IMPACT EVALUATION: PHASE I BASELINE RESULTS

Findings from Warrap and Northern Bahr el Ghazal StatesJuba, 7 May 2013

Cooking valantine-aegyptic (type of wild food)

Photo: Joseph Kuol, BRACE Assessment Assistant

SAMPLED

LOCATIO

NS – BY LIVELIH

OO

D ZO

NE

SAMPLED

LOCATIO

NS – BY CO

UN

TY-LEVEL FOO

D IN

SECURITY

SAMPLESample by household level food insecurity and wealth group

HOUSEHOLDS Very poor Poor Middle/Better-off TOTALSeverely food insecure HH 1206 236 153 1595Non-FFA 643 127 82 852FFA 563 109 71 743Moderately food insecure HH 1380 521 488 2389Non-FFA 695 248 214 1157FFA 685 273 274 1232Food secure HH 236 45 17 298Non-FFA 125 28 7 160FFA 111 17 10 138TOTAL 2822 (66%) 802 (19%) 658 (15%) 4282

Severly food insecure county Moderately food insecure county

Food secure county0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

8% 7% 2%

38% 38%29%

54% 55%69%

Household level food insecurity - by county-level food insecurity

SecureModeratelySeverely

FINDINGS

FIND

ING

S

• BRACE found fewer households to be severely or moderately food insecure (52%) compared to FSMS (67%) in Northern Bahr el Ghazal State

• BRACE also found fewer severely or moderately food insecure households in Warrap State (38%) compared to FSMS (43%) The food insecurity rating used by the FSMS has three components – food access indicator; coping strategy index; and food

consumption score. BRACE was more likely to score households as having a low food access score given that data was gathered on two as

opposed to three income sources. On the other hand, BRACE was more likely to give households a higher food consumption score, given that BRACE data was

gathered on individual cereal and protein groups, which were added up to obtain a consumption score for each group as a whole.

Different sample sizes - FSMS gathers data from on average 284 households per state, the BRACE baseline sample included 1,982 households in Northern Bahr el Ghazal State and 2,326 households in Warrap State.

And perhaps difference in selection of households to interview?

•

BRACE FSMS BRACE FSMSNBeG Warrap

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

8% 9% 6% 12%

44%58%

32%31%

49%33%

62% 57%

Household level food insecurity - by State and data set

Food secureModerately food insecureSeverely food insecure

FIND

ING

S• Those who had received nothing were most likely to be food insecure (48%)• Followed by all other households (42%)

GFD rations range from 535 – 615 grams per person per day FFA ration is limited to 385 grams Households that received only GFD may have received several GFD rations, while households that switched

to FFA would have started with GFD rations before switching to FFA ration sizes.

None FFA/GFD GFD FFA0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

8% 6% 6% 7%

40% 36% 36% 35%

53% 59% 59% 58%

Household level food insecurity - by mode of intervention

SecureModeratelySeverely

FIND

ING

S

Very Poor Poor Middle/Better-off0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

49% 47%44%

4% 4% 3%

29%27%

37%

19%23%

17%

Household participation in intervention - by wealth group

NoneGFDFFAFFA/GFD

Better-off/Middle Poor Very poor0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3% 6% 8%

23%29%

43%

74%65%

49%

Household level food insecurity - by wealth group

SecureModeratelySeverely

FIND

ING

S

NBeG Warrap FSMS0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

56% 50%

30%

39% 44%

38%

6% 6%

32%

Household income reliability and sustainability score - by State and compared to FSMS

GoodMediumPoor

• We found that households in Northern Bahr el Ghazal were more likely to receive a poor income reliability score (56%) than households in Warrap state (50%)

• We found that income reliability & sustainability scores were low when comparing BRACE data with FSMSnational averages

BRACE data is more likely to give households a lower score because we gathered data on two income sources as opposed to three gathered by FSMS

• Income reliability score is part of the FSMS food security categories – these are composed by three elements: Food consumption score (<=21 is Poor; >21 to 35 is Borderline and >35 is Acceptable) Coping strategy index (<=50 is Low; >50 to <=100 is Medium and >100 is High) Food Access indicator (Poor, Medium, Good, based on percentage spent on food and reliability/sustainability

of income)

FIND

ING

S

• BRACE found high reliance on natural resources in Northern Bahr el Ghazal compared to Warrap – also seen in FSMS data with even greater difference between the two states

• BRACE data did not detect the high reliance on sale of livestock and products reported by FSMS in Warrap• FSMS also reported a higher reliance on sale of crops in Warrap – this was not seen in BRACE data

BRACE FSMS BRACE FSMSNBEG Warrap

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

31%39%

22% 21%

10%

17%

25% 24%

0.1313794845881760.0982683982683983

0.0727640222334513 0.0709956709956715%

4%

6%

15%

0.0672056594239515 0.0445887445887446

7%

13%

5%

3%

5%

3%

7%

24%

0.0459828196058616 0.02987012987012990.0419403739262254

0.0324675324675325

0.03486609398686210.0294372294372295

0.007074279939363320.0199134199134199

24%

13%0.0112554112554113

Household main income source – by State and data setOther

Begging (poor)

Borrowing (poor)

Gifts/remittances from kin/friends (poor)

Sale of domestic animal products (good)

Casual labour - other (poor)

Aid (poor)

Casual labour - construction (poor)

Sale of livestock & products (good)

Salaried work (good)

Sale of wild foods (medium)

Sale of crops (good)

Casual labour - agriculture (medium)

Other trading/business (good)

Sale of alcohol (medium)

Sale of natural resources (poor)

FIND

ING

SReliance on a single income source – making households less resilient?

Reliance on a single income source was found to be correlated with income sources that are considered most reliable and sustainable

• SALARIED WORK: 21.1% of households relying on salaried work had no other income source• AGRICULTURAL CASUAL LABOUR: 16.3% of those relying on agricultural casual labour reported having no

other source of income. • LIVESTOCK SALES: 15% of households selling livestock products had no second income source• TRADE OR BUSINESSES: 14.2% had no second income

Reliance on a single income source correlation with less reliable income source• GIFTS: Although gifts from kin were considered an unreliable source of income, 16.3% of households relying

on gifts reported no secondary source of income. It may be the case that gifts or remittances from wealthier kin could be a relatively reliable income source,

leaving little incentive in some cases to seek alternative sources of income.

FIND

ING

S

• Women were found to conduct most of the sale of alcohol (80%); begging (69%); and sale of natural resources (61%).

• Men dominated in proportion of salaried work (83%); casual construction labour (65%); and livestock sales (63%).

• The ratio of female to male contribution to income was 1.45:1 – hence for every two men, three women were contributing an income. Significant variation in ratio was seen when comparing wealth groups – the most even ratio was found in Poor households (1.33:1), followed by Middle/better-off households (1.43:1) and Very Poor households (1.54:1)

Alcoho

l sale

s

Beggin

g

Firewoo

d/cha

rcoal/

grass

sales

Wild foo

ds sa

les

Borrow

ing

Other tr

ading

busie

nss

Casua

l labo

ur - a

gricu

lture

Crop sa

les

Lives

tock p

roduc

t sale

s

Casua

l labo

ur - o

ther

Gifts fro

m kin/f

riend

s/rem

ittanc

esOthe

rAid

Lives

tock s

ales

Casua

l labo

ur - c

onstr

uctio

n

Salarie

d work

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

80%69% 61% 56% 55% 54% 52% 51% 49% 44% 39% 38% 38% 37% 35%

17%

20%31% 39% 44% 45% 46% 48% 49% 51% 56% 61% 62% 62% 63% 65%

83%

Income contribution - by gender

MaleFemale

FIND

ING

S• In Northern Bahr el Ghazal state, 23% of households were classified as having a borderline or poor food consumption score by BRACE compared to 36% reported by FSMS.

• In Warrap State, 27% were found with borderline or poor consumption score, compared to 37% reported by FSMS.

The difference could be partly explained by the fact that the food consumption score awarded to households based on BRACE data, was more likely to classify households as having a more acceptable food consumption score. This was because households had been asked about individual cereal (sorghum, maize, cassava and other) and protein (meat, poultry, fish, eggs) categories which were added up in order to compare with the FSMS.

BRACE FSMS BRACE FSMSNBeG Warrap

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

7% 9% 7% 13%16%

27%20%

24%

77%64%

73%63%

Household food consumption score by State and data set

AcceptableBorderlinePoor

FIND

ING

S• Households spent on average 37% of their expenditure on food, the proportion was higher in Northern Bahr el Ghazal (43%) than Warrap (34%) State.

• The FSMS had also found a higher proportion of expenditure on food in Northern Bahr el Ghazal (69%) than Warrap (60%).

The higher proportion of food expenses recorded by the FSMS is interesting given that BRACE total expenditure did not include livelihood inputs, such as seeds, tools, labour, livestock and drugs for livestock – these items were assessed on a yearly expenditure basis to allow for disaggregation into wealth groups according the HEA framework.

NBeG

Warrap

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

459

463

262

441

83

137

76

110

17

26

62

85

74

80

42

35

Average household expenditure (SSP) in 30 days - by StateFood

NFI

Education

Medical

Transport / communication

Debt

Barter

Saved

FIND

ING

S

• Households in Northern Bahr el Ghazal were found to spend a slightly higher proportion of food expenditure on staples (cereals)

• The average share of household expenditure spent on cereal was found to be 21% in Northern Bahr el Ghazal, compared to 15% in Warrap – the overall average share was 17%. The FSMS found a similar pattern, with 41% spent in Northern Bahr el Ghazal compared to 32% in Warrap.

• This could be related to the fact that a much higher proportion of households in Northern Bahr el Ghazal stated market purchases as opposed to own production as their main source of staples such as maize and sorghum (see food sources).

NBeG

Warrap

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

223

201

47

50

53

56

47

51

27

32

29

34

15

16

13

17

4

3

Household expenditure (SSP) over 30 days - Food by StateCereals

Sugar

Pulses and nuts

Meat fish and poultry

Fruits and vegetables

Oil and salt

Tea coffee drinks

Milk and eggs

Other

Roots

FIND

ING

S

• Households relied in the majority of cases on markets for their food purchases – for example, on average 55% of all cereals were bought at the market. The corresponding FSMS average was 56%.

• Own production still accounted for a significant proportion of food sourcing in February and March, providing on average 36% of cereals. The corresponding FSMS average was 28%.

• Food aid was the third most commonly reported food source, accounting for 5% of all foods.

OtherOil and fats

SugarOther roots and tubers

Vegetables

PulsesMeatMilk

SorghumFruits

Other cereal

EggsCassava

Maize

FSMS Cereal

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

63%

60%

59%

58%

58%

57%

57%

57%

56%

56%

52%

51%

50%

41%

56%

27%

30%

30%

32%

33%

37%

35%

35%

35%

35%

37%

40%

27%

46%

28%

4%

5%

5%

4%

3%

2%

4%

4%

4%

3%

5%

5%

15%

7%

0.16

Household main source of food – by food type Market/shop purchase

Own production

Food aid

Food for work

Gift from kin

Borrowed

Wild food collection

Gift from non-kin

Other

FIND

ING

S

• Significant variation between States for some foods that were more likely to be purchased in the market in Northern Bahr el Ghazal: sorghum, maize, vegetables, eggs, fish, milk and sugar

NBeG

Warrap

NBeG

Warrap

NBeG

Warrap

NBeG

Warrap

NBeG

Warrap

NBeG

Warrap

NBeG

Warrap

NBeG

Warrap

Sorg

hum

Mai

zeVe

geta

bles

Eggs

Fish

Milk

Suga

rO

ther

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

69%

45%

56%

33%

70%

46%

74%

40%

74%

48%

74%

46%

70%

49%

72%

52%

23%

47%

28%

56%

21%

46%

20%

50%

18%

44%

21%

44%

19%

40%

18%

37%

3%

4%

5%

7%

3%

4%

3%

5%

3%

4%

2%

5%

4%

6%

3%

5%

Main source of food - by food type and State

Market/shop purchaseOwn productionFood aidFood for workGift from kinBorrowedWild food collectionGift from non-kin

FIND

ING

S• 50% of households were found to have used a coping strategy in the 7 days preceding the survey, fewer than the proportion reported by FSMS (57%).

• 33% of households in Northern Bahr el Ghazal State scored medium or high on the index based on BRACE data, while the corresponding figure for FSMS in the State was 1%.

• In Warrap, 31% of households surveyed by BRACE scored medium or high on the index, compared to 9% of those surveyed by FSMS.

Coping strategy index could be recreated in exactly the same way using BRACE data Could be due to difference in sample size? Could be due to difference in selection of sample?

BRACE FSMS BRACE FSMSNBEG Warrap

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

4% 5% 1%

29%

1%

26%8%

19%59%

18% 61%

48% 40% 51%30%

Household coping strategy index category - by State and data set

NoneLowMediumHigh

FIND

ING

S

• The most common coping strategy overall was reducing portion sizes or skipping meals – which were both used by 47% of households surveyed by BRACE in Northern Bahr el Ghazal and Warrap States and by 40% and 39% of those surveyed by FSMS in South Sudan as a whole.

• The BRACE survey also found that a significant proportion of households (41%) had started collecting and eating unusual amounts of wild foods for the season, a strategy which had only been reported by 13% of FSMS households.

• Consumption of seed stocks and sale of animals was also reported by BRACE households to a greater extent – by 24% and 19% of households compared to 6% and 7% of FSMS households respectively.

Sell an

imals

Eat se

ed st

ock

Reduc

e adu

lt con

sumpti

on

Borrow

mon

ey or

food

Skip da

y with

out fo

od

Eat un

usua

l amou

nt of

wild foo

d

Less

expe

nsive

/desir

able

food

Skip m

eals

Reduc

e port

ion si

ze0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

19%24%

33% 33%36%

41%45% 47% 47%

7% 6%

27%30%

21%

13%

43%39% 40%

Households using coping strategy – by data set

BRACEFSMS

FIND

ING

SCoefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B

B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound

1(Constant) 41.369 1.670 24.767 .000 38.094 44.643

Income Reliability -3.194 .445 -.110 -7.173 .000 -4.068 -2.321

a. Dependent Variable: Coping strategies index

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B

B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound

1(Constant) 40.944 .998 41.020 .000 38.987 42.901

Income Reliability 2.895 .266 .165 10.879 .000 2.373 3.417

a. Dependent Variable: Food consumption score

Correlation between food security variables

FIND

ING

S• Smaller households found more likely to be food insecure• While 50% of households with 1-5 members were found to be food insecure, the corresponding

figure was 35% for households with 10 or more members. • The average household size in the sample was 7, with non-FFA households slightly smaller in

size (7.8) than FFA households (8). • Households with 1-6 members accounted for a quarter (25%) of the sample, followed by those

with 7-8 members (25%), 9 members (25%) and 10 members (25%).

1-6 7-8 9 10+0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

9% 7% 7% 4%

41% 38% 38%31%

50% 55% 55%65%

Household level food insecurity - by number of household members

SecureModeratelySeverely

FIND

ING

S• Host-headed households were overall found as likely (44%) to be severely or moderately food insecure as Returnee households across the two States.

• This was significantly different compared to FSMS findings for the country as a whole, where Returnee households had been identified as more likely to be severely or moderately food insecure (64%) than host households (49%).

• Why this difference? The BRACE sample included 418 Returnee households (10%) of total sample while 3% of the FSMS sample

included Returnees (around 85 households) FSMS data also showed that female headed households were on average more likely in the country overall to

be classified as food insecure (57%) compared to male headed households (48%). The same was found in BRACE data – 47% of female headed households were food insecure, compared to 38% of male headed households.

Host

IDP

Nomad

Migrant

Returnee

Refugee

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

92.9%

3.2%

0.1%

0.1%

3.5%

0.3%

89.4%

4.3%

0.0%

0.0%

6.1%

0.1%

Residence status of household heads – by State

WarrapNBeG

FIND

ING

S• The FSMS reported that 46% of children under the age of two surveyed in Northern Bahr el Ghazal had experienced symptoms of malaria during the 2 weeks preceding the survey.

BRACE data asked for child sickness for children aged less than 5, also over a two-week period preceding the survey. • BRACE found that only 13% of children aged less than 5 surveyed in the state were reported to have had symptoms of

malaria. • The proportion when amongst under 5 year olds that suffered symptoms of diarrhea was also smaller than amongst

under 2 year olds – 5% of <5 in Northern Bahr el Ghazal and 6% in Warrap state reported symptoms to BRACE, while the corresponding figure for <2 in FSMS was 34% and 29%.

• The same trend was seen for symptoms of acute respiratory infections (ARI) in Northern Bahr el Ghazal – from which 3% of <5 had suffered according to BRACE and 18% of <2 according to FSMS. In Warrap on the other hand, the FSMS incidence amongst <2 suddenly dropped to 2% - lower than the 4% of children under 5 that had been reported to BRACE.

BRACE (<5) FSMS (<2) BRACE (<5) FSMS (<2)NBeG Warrap

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

13%

46%

15%

33%

5%

34%

6%

29%

3%

18%

4%2%

Child sickness - by State and data set

Malaria/feverDiarrhoeaARI

FIND

ING

S

• According to FSMS, 89% of households in Northern Bahr el Ghazal had complained of high food prices.

• Households surveyed by BRACE reported this as a main shock across both Warrap (93%) and Northern Bahr el Ghazal (92%), poor road networks and long distances for food transport were identified as a possible underlying reason for this, for all border states, by the FSMS

• The FSMS also found livestock disease to be a particularly common complaint in Warrap State (49% of households), this was confirmed by BRACE data where 82% of Warrap households complained of livestock disease, compared to 66% in Northern Bahr el Ghazal.

OtherIntimidation by authorities/security forces

Insecurity/violenceNon-relatives being a burden

Lack of access to fuel for cookingReturnee/IDP relatives being a burden

Host relatives being a burdenPoor road conditions/closures

Livestock diseaseLack/high cost of transport

Lack of clean/safe waterLack of income

Lack of access to medical careHuman sickness

Food too expensive/not available

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%0.13

0.23

0.25

0.680.660000000000003

0.04503249767873760.19405756731662

0.2305013927576610.252089136490251

0.332636954503250.376044568245127

0.424791086350975

0.7291086350974960.776694521819874

0.8463324048282270.868152274837512

0.950789229340762

0.9391829155060350.9598421541318480.960770659238629

Shocks experienced by households – by data set

BRACEFSMS

THAN

K YOUThank you!

For any comments, questions or suggestions – please feel free to get in touch: elisabeth.vikman@acted.org