3.

Interpreting HH survey data

The challenge…
Dhamar Governorate, Yemen (April 2014)
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Minimal Stress Crisis Emergency Catastrophe
Household Hunger
64% 23% 7% 4% 2%
Score
Food
Consumption 51% 49% 0%
Score
Reduced Coping
48% 36% 16%
Strategies index

• Analysis assumes HH respond similarly to all food security outcome indicators

• Indicators do not always align, making convergence difficult.
• Food frequency indicators often suggest the highest prevalence of food insecurity given
that they measure both food quality and quantity.

__________________________________________
FAMINE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS NETWORK 1
 3. Interpreting HH survey data

Opportunity?
 In the past, it was often assumed that different indicators would come
from different data sets. However, it is increasingly common that
national IPC analyses are driven by large, multi-indicator datasets.
 This shift presents an opportunity to better understand how indicators
vary at the household level. This can:
o
highlight additional analytical insights
o
allow for a consideration of LH coping that is better aligned with
the IPCs analytical approach
o
allow us to move beyond the assumption that households face the
same severity on all indicators.
 This opportunity does not rely on modelling or mathematical
calculations and therefore does not conflict with existing IPC
guidance. Rather it simply classifies households based on their
responses to a number of indictors.
__________________________________________
FAMINE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS NETWORK 2
 3. Interpreting HH survey data

Objectives
 Provide better tools for analysts who are attempting to derive
IPC population estimates from multiple HH indicators.
 Improve the transparency of the population estimation process.
 Provide additional insights through data exploration.

__________________________________________
FAMINE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS NETWORK 3
 3. Interpreting HH survey data

Approach
Integrated analysis of food
consumption variables

Method can be
informed by
Analysis of livelihood coping feedback from
variables country specific
TWGs and
partners.

Phase classification

__________________________________________
FAMINE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS NETWORK 4
 3. Interpreting HH survey data

Creating indicator matrices

Food consumption matrix

rCSI < 5 rCSI = 5-20 rCSI > 20

FCS = FCS = FCS =
FCS> 42 FCS <28 FCS> 42 FCS <28 FCS> 42 FCS <28
28-42 28-42 28-42

HHS= 0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41

HHS= 1 2 7 12 17 22 27 32 37 42

HHS= 2-3 3 8 13 18 23 28 33 38 43

HHS= 4-5 4 9 14 19 24 29 34 39 44

HHS= 6 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

__________________________________________
FAMINE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS NETWORK 5
 3. Interpreting HH survey data

Creating indicator matrices

Adding Livelihood Change to indicator matrix

LH Coping LH Coping LH Coping LH Coping

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

FC Phase 1 1 6 11 16

FC Phase 2 2 7 12 17

FC Phase 3 3 8 13 18

FC Phase 4 4 9 14 19

FC Phase 5 5 10 15 20

__________________________________________
FAMINE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS NETWORK 6
 3. Interpreting HH survey data

Examples from 2017

Yemen Cameroon Afghanistan

Somalia Haiti South Sudan

__________________________________________
FAMINE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS NETWORK 7
 Food consumption matrix
Somalia Post-Gu 2017
rCSI < 5 rCSI = 5-20 rCSI > 20

FCS = FCS = FCS =

FCS> 42 FCS <28 FCS> 42 FCS <28 FCS> 42 FCS <28
28-42 28-42 28-42

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41
HHS= 0
(28.1%) (6.1%) (4.9%) (3.5%) (1.5%) (1.5%) (0.4%) (0.2%) (0.3%)

2 7 12 17 22 27 32 37 42
HHS= 1
(2.1%) (1.3%) (1.9%) (4.8%) (2.8%) (4.1%) (1.0%) (0.1%) (0.6%)

3 8 13 18 23 28 33 38 43
HHS= 2-3
(2.1%) (1.2%) (6.1%) (5.7%) (2.1%) (6.2%) (1.5%) (0.5%) (2.2%)

4 9 14 19 24 29 34 39 44
HHS= 4-5
(0.2%) (0.2%) (0.4%) (0.4%) (0.3%) (1.4%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (1.0%)

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
HHS= 6
(0.0%) (0.0%) (0.6%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.5%) (0.1%) (0.1%) (1.1%)
__________________________________________
FAMINE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS NETWORK 8
Adding Livelihood Change to indicator matrix
Somalia Post-Gu 2017
LH Coping LH Coping LH Coping LH Coping
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

1 6 11 16
FC Phase 1
(21.0%) (7.3%) (0.7%) (2.6%)

2 7 12 17
FC Phase 2
(13.5%) (13.2%) (2.6%) (7.3%)

3 8 13 18
FC Phase 3
(5.2%) (9.6%) (5.1%) (7.9%)

4 9 14 19
FC Phase 4
(0.7%) (0.8%) (0.1%) (0.9%)

5 10 15 20
FC Phase 5
(0.5%) (0.3%) (0.1%) (0.8%)

__________________________________________
FAMINE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS NETWORK 9
 National results
Somalia Post-Gu 2017

Cumulative
IPC Phase Frequency Percent
Percent
Phase 1 966 21.0 21.0
Phase 2 1,560 34.0 55.0
Phase 3 1,519 33.1 88.1
Phase 4 474 10.3 98.4
Phase 5 73 1.6 100.0
Total 4,222 100.0

__________________________________________
FAMINE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS NETWORK 10