Regional M&E framework

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

2. Regional M&E framework

3. CHS/PDM: What is it? Regional/ Country Surveillance and monitoring system After harvest March/April Since 2003 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 Compares beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries Provides information on food security Helps to understand the access to food by communities and households Gives early warning information

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. 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

11. Advantages and disadvantages of regional exercise • Different seasons • Different activities • Different priorities • Different procedures • Different selection criteria • Different implementers • Different language- Moz required translation • 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

12. SeasonalCalendarandcriticalperiodsSource: FEWS NET

13. CHS Geographical Coverage

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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 Integrating in national exercises with subsamples valid at district levels • Statistically valid sample • at district level Data from nat surveys only valid at prov level and released after several months • Better quality of data • collected by teams Decentralization of data collection Wider dissemination of findings CHS data in national database ( ESDEM) CHS results to be more used by others Geographical targeting and better registration of FDPs # Ben Cost reduction

19. 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

20. 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

21. Demographic data (ex: Round 12, April 2009)

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

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

24. Food Consumption Score (FCS)/ provinces

25. Number of days foods consumed per week by type

29. IndicationofCopingStrategyIndex (CSI) 2005-2009 (source: PMA CHS-PDM)

30. Coping Strategy Index (CSI) amongcountries

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

32. Questions?Thank you