Upload
ernest-norfolk
View
221
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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