End-line Survey

Cahora Bassa, Mozambique

Cash Pilot

April 2019
End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

Table of Contents

Page

I. Summary 3

II. Background 4

III. Methodology and Sampling 4

IV. Demographics of Interviewed Households 5

V. Food Consumption 6

VI. Dietary Diversity Score 9

VII. Economic Vulnerability 11

VIII. Consumption-Based Coping 12

IX. Livelihood-Based Coping 14

X. Consolidated Approach to Reporting Indicators of Food Insecurity 16

XI. Decision-making on use of cash 18

XII. Gender-based Violence 18

XIII. Market Visit Frequency 19

XIV. Preference for Transfer Modalities 19

XV. Knwoledge of Programme Selection 21

XVI. Mobile Phone- and M-PESA Use 21

XVII. Acronyms 22

April 2019 Page  2

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

I. Summary
The end-line survey was conducted in March (peak of the lean season), but the baseline survey
was conducted in May (just after harvest). As a result, comparison of baseline with end-line data
was not very useful. However, in the end-line survey data was collected for 400 beneficiary
households and 280 non-beneficiary households, which facilitated comparison between these two
groups at a statistically reliable level.

Main findings of the survey were that the cash pilot:

- Significantly increased food consumption and dietary diversity as well as the intake of iron
and protein of beneficiary households compared to non-beneficiary households. This
finding was confirmed for both male- and female-headed households. The intake of iron
is important as this is something WFP could not have achieved if in-kind assistance had
been provided.

- Significantly reduced the extent to which female-headed beneficiary households had to

rely on livelihood-coping strategies during the lean season, compared to female-headed
non-beneficiary households. This finding likely supports a common-held view in cash-
based literature that asserts that female-headed households are more likely to use cash
transfers to invest in productive activities than male-headed households.

- Significantly improved the Food Security Index for beneficiary households compared to
non-beneficiary households. Importantly, when doing these tests by gender, the general
result was confirmed for female-headed households but not for male-headed households.
However, female-headed households do maintain higher numbers of food insecure
households compared to male-headed households. Nevertheless, the cash-based
programme has helped reduce the gap in terms of food security between male-and female
headed households in favour of female-headed households.

- Significantly increased the frequency with which beneficiary households visit local markets
compared to non-beneficiaries

- Significantly increased the popularity of cash as a transfer modality amongst beneficiary

households compared to non-beneficiary households.

- Increased access to telecommunications and mobile money for beneficiaries.

April 2019 Page  3

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

II. Background

Since 2017, the World Food Programme (WFP) has been gradually increasing its Cash Based
Transfers (CBT) and commodity vouchers portfolio across Mozambique. From 2017 to 2019, WFP
increased its caseload from 11,000 beneficiaries at the height of El Nino response in 2017 up to
over 120,000 beneficiaries receiving vouchers for lean season support.

In September 2018, as part of an EU funded response, WFP started assistance for 2,122
households in Cahora Bassa district in Tete through Cash for Work (CfW) using mobile money (M-
PESA) as the delivery mechanism. Households received a total of 2,000 Mozambican Metical (MZN),
from which 20 MZN was deducted by the agent for withdrawal fees. Four disbursements were
made between September 2018 up to January 2019 across 36 communities. Decision on the
distribution of cash in Cahora Bassa district was made following market assessments, financial
service assessment, discussions with local authorities as well as security and gender analysis.

Selection of households was based on vulnerability criteria looking at:

a) Head of household characteristics: including whether household was headed by a single

parent, elderly, child, disabled or chronically ill member.
b) Household composition: looking at the number of people that were chronically ill within a
household, the number of pregnant and lactating women, and number of dependants.
c) Household economy: looking at land access, loss of labour opportunities, any loss of
agricultural and productive assets and/or livestock assets.
d) Households receiving or eligible for the Basic Social Subsidy Programme (PSSB) from the
National Institute for Social Action (INAS).

Consideration was also given to households with members that were able to engage in labour
activities in the CfW-project. Initial lists were provided by the community to authorities and WFP’s
Cooperating Partner (CP), the Association for Rural Development of Mágoè (ADRM). ADRM was
responsible for verifying the lists to make sure households were indeed eligible for assistance to
derive the final list of eligible households.

Cash-based assistance has already been used in Mozambique for social protection programmes,
but not yet for emergency-type programming. Therefore, it is anticipated that findings of this cash
pilot provide important evidence on use of cash in Mozambique to inform future programmatic
decisions and government considerations.

III.Methodology and Sampling

The end-line survey was conducted between 19 and 27 February. A total of 680 households in
Cahora Bassa were interviewed: 400 households were beneficiaries, and 280 households were
non-beneficiaries. As this survey used a full probability sample-approach that randomly selected
both beneficiary and non-beneficiary households, the data can be treated as a random sample of
households receiving cash assistance as well as non-beneficiary households in Cahora Bassa
respectively. This means that the conclusions related to the analysis of the end-line survey can be

April 2019 Page  4

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

generalized to all households receiving cash assistance for beneficiaries and to households in
Cahora Bassa that don’t receive WFP support for non-beneficiaries.

From the 680 interviews 3 could not be used for data analysis; 2 of these households were non-
beneficiaries, and 1 household concerned a beneficiary household. As a result, 399 beneficiary
households were left for analysis and 278 non-beneficiary households. These numbers ensure
that figures for beneficiaries can be represented with certainty at a 95% confidence level and at a
90% confidence level for non-beneficiaries.

The baseline survey, which was done in May 2018 uses the same sample approach as the end-line,
meaning that the conclusions related to the analysis of the baseline survey can be generalized to
all households targeted for cash assistance. Please note the baseline survey interviewed
households that were targeted for cash assistance but had not yet received assistance when they
were interviewed for the baseline survey. Data was collected for 279 households, meaning that
figures for targeted beneficiaries can be represented with certainty at a 90% confidence level for
non-beneficiaries.

IV. Demographics of Interviewed Households

The disaggregation of households by survey, beneficiary status and sex of head of household is
shown in table 1.

Table 1: data disaggregated by sex of head of household

Survey: Male-headed household Female-headed household
Baseline survey May 2018 190 89
End-line survey (non-
125 153
beneficiaries February 2019)
End-line survey (beneficiaries
170 229
February 2019)

The population reached through the household interviews for the end-line survey is estimated at
3,681 people. The disaggregation of these people is shown in table 2. The highest demographic is
that of children aged 5-17, which accounts for almost half (46%) of the total population.

Out of the 677 respondents, 16% (111) noted they had a pregnant- or lactating woman in their
household, and 2% (14) had a child enrolled at a health centre for treatment of moderate acute
malnutrition (MAM) or severe acute malnutrition (SAM).

Table 2: Disaggregation of sampled population by age

Category Proportion
Male (under 5) 8%
Female (under 5) 9%
Male (5-17) 24%
Female (5-17) 22%

April 2019 Page  5

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

Male (18-59) 14%

Female (18-59) 17%
Male (60+) 3%
Female (60+) 3%
Sampled households had an average household size of 6 people; please see the histogram in
figure 1 below for more information.

Figure 1: Histogram of family size of sampled households

V. Food Consumption
The Food Consumption Score (FCS) is a composite of dietary diversity and food frequency
(referring to foods consumed over a seven-day period) and is used as a descriptor of household’s
current food consumption status. Different foods and food groups are weighted based on their
nutritional density. Households are classified as having either ‘poor’, ‘borderline’ or ‘acceptable’
FCS based. ‘Poor’ food consumption is generally regarded as a sign of extreme household food
insecurity. ‘Borderline’ food consumption is classified as a diet made up of cereals and vegetables
on a daily basis plus oils/fats for five days and sugar/ sugar products for three days per week.
‘Acceptable’ food consumption is classified as daily intake of cereals, vegetables, oil and sugar, and
at least one day consumption of protein-rich foods.

FCS-Nutrition (FCS-N) is calculated in a similar way as the FCS but it zooms in on the consumption
of three essential food groups: Vitamin A, Protein and Iron. The FCS-categories for the FCS-N
scores can be interpreted as following: when FCS-N is “acceptable”, it means the household
consumes the nutrient daily (7 days per week). When FCS-N is “borderline”, it means the household
consumes the nutrient sometimes (1-6 days a week). When FCS-N is “poor”, it means the
household did not consume the nutrient at all (0 days a week).

April 2019 Page  6

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

Figure 2 shows the FCS results, disaggregated by gender for both the baseline as well as the end-
line. For the latter, data has also been disaggregated between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.
Importantly, independent T-tests can be done in the end-line dataset as there are enough
observations for both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. These tests reveal that the FCS for
beneficiaries is significantly higher (at the 5% significance level) for beneficiaries compared to non-
beneficiaries. The same test results are obtained when doing these tests separately for male-
headed households that are not beneficiaries versus male headed households that are
beneficiaries and for female-headed households that are not beneficiaries versus female-headed
households that are beneficiaries.

Figure 2: Proportion of households by FCS Category

100%

90% 16% 20% 20%

26% 25% 25% 24% 27%
80% 37%

70%

60% 47%
51% 54%
50% 51% 56%
59% 56% 53%
40%
51%
30%

20% 37%
25% 29% 26%
10% 18% 20% 20%
15% 12%
0%
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

Baseline (Jun-18) Non-beneficiaries Endline (Mar- Beneficiaries Endline (Mar 19)

19)

Poor Borderline Acceptable

Although, the FCS for beneficiaries is significantly better than non-beneficiaries, the picture for
trends is mixed. When looking at non-beneficiaries, a deterioration is visible compared to the
baseline data. This can be expected given the timing of data collection with the end-line having
taken place at the end of the lean season, while the baseline was done two months after harvest.
One interesting aspect that can be derived from the comparison of baseline data with end-line
data is that the food consumption of female-headed households decreases much more in the lean
season compared to male-headed households: for example, for non-beneficiaries, the proportion
of female-headed households with acceptable food consumption score decreased by 36% (from
25% to 16%), while for male-headed households there was only an 8% drop (from 26% to 24%).
Similarly, for female-headed household beneficiaries there was a 20% drop in households with
acceptable food consumption score (from 25% to 20%), while for male-headed households there
was a 35% increase in the number of households with acceptable food consumption score (from
26% to 37%).

April 2019 Page  7

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

When turning to the FCS-N, independent t-Test were also performed, and it was found that protein
and iron scores for beneficiary households are significantly better, at the 5% significance level,
compared to non-beneficiaries, while for vitamin-A there was no significant difference. This is a
very important finding: had WFP provided in-kind assistance, cereals and pulses could be provided
contributing to both vitamin A- and protein intake but improving iron-intake cannot be achieved
with in-kind assistance. Figure 3 provides an overview of the FCS-N outcomes.

Figure 3: Proportion of households by FCS-N Category for Vitamin-A rich food

100% 3% 1% 3%
9% 8% 13%
90%
26%
80% 39%
54% 50% 47%
70% 52% 47%
60% 66% 53%
50%
40% 67%

30% 32% 60% 36%

51%
20% 44% 45%
34%
10% 25%
13% 14%
8%
0%
Vitamin A Protein Iron Vitamin A Protein Iron Vitamin A Protein Iron

Baseline (Jun-18) Non-beneficiaries Endline (Mar- Beneficiaries Endline (Mar 19)

19)

Did not eat in last 7 days Ate sometimes in last 7 days Ate daily in last 7 days

Figure 3 shows that although the cash-transfers have not completely countered harmful effects of
the lean season, they reduced them significantly for protein and iron intake: for non-beneficiaries,
the proportion of households that did not consume protein-rich food during the entire week
before data collection increased with 80%. For beneficiary households, this increase was 36%.
Similarly, the proportion of households that did not consume iron-rich food during the entire week
increased with 37% to 60% of all households in total. For beneficiary households, the increase was
“only” 14%. For vitamin A, this comparison could not be completed as the t-test already shows
there was no significant difference in consumption of vitamin-A rich food between beneficiaries
and non-beneficiaries. The reason for this is that cash transfers were most likely used for protein-
and iron-rich foods. The next chapter on the Dietary Diversity Score will provide more insights on
this last point.

Because of the limited use of comparing the baseline data that comes just after the harvest and
end-line data that comes just before the harvest at the peak of the lean season, further analysis
has been performed exclusively based on the end-line survey since it also allows for analysis
between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.

April 2019 Page  8

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

VI. Dietary Diversity Score

The Dietary Diversity Score (DDS) is a qualitative measure of food consumption that reflects
household access to a variety of foods, and is also a proxy for nutrient adequacy of the diet of
individuals. The DDS is usually calculated with a recall period of 24 hours, but because it is based
on the same module with which the FCS is calculated, the recall period for the DDS that is
reported here is 7 days.

For calculation of the DDS 8 food groups were used:

1. Cereals and tubers;

2. Vegetables (orange, green, and other);
3. Fruits (orange and other);
4. Meat (flesh and organ), fish, and eggs;
5. Pulses (legumes), nuts, and seeds;
6. Dairy;
7. Oil; and
8. Sugar.

This means that the maximum DDS a household can have is 8.

Figure 4 shows histograms of the DDS, highlighting how most non-beneficiary households
(indicated in figure 4 in blue) only consumed 3 food groups in the last week before data
collection, while most beneficiary households seemed to consume 4 different groups. An
independent t-test of the means for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries shows that the means
are significantly different at the 5% significance level. This is a crucial finding since it indicates
that the dietary diversity of WFP beneficiaries is significantly better than non-beneficiaries.

Figure 4: Histograms of DDS distribution by beneficiary category

April 2019 Page  9

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

Figure 5 provides more insights into the DDS by gender, including of the baseline survey,
showing that even the dietary diversity of male-headed households that are not beneficiaries are
higher than female-headed households regardless of their beneficiary status.

Figure 5: DDS averages by gender and beneficiary category

5.00
4.38
4.50
4.09 4.07
4.00 3.84 3.83
3.62
3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
Non-benef. Benef. (Mar-19) Non-benef. Benef. (Mar-19) Non-benef. Benef. (Mar-19)
(Mar-19) (Mar-19) (Mar-19)

Male Female Total

Table 3 provides further insights to figure 5 by listing the proportions from high to low in which
the various food groups were consumed in the last week (based on the end-line survey). A
disaggregation between male-and female headed households is also provided. The table shows
that the main 4 food groups that were consumed included vegetables, cereals, oil, and the group
covering meat, fish, and oil. Differences between male- and female-headed households are
striking. Independent t-tests show that the differences on consumption of cereals and tubers,
vegetables, dairy and legumes are not statistically significant, but differences for all other groups
are significant at the 5% significance level, i.e. male-headed households consume significantly
more vegetable oil, sugar and salt, fruits, and meat-fish-or-eggs.

Table 3: proportion of households that consumed DDS Food Groups in the last week
Food Group Proportion of Proportion of male- Proportion of female-
households that headed households headed households
consumed food group that consumed food that consumed food
in the last week group in the last group in the last
week week
Cereals and 99% 99% 99%
tubers
Vegetables 97% 97% 95%
(orange, green,
and other)
Vegetable oil 69% 73% 67%

April 2019 Page  10

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

Meat (flesh and 47% 57% 39%

organ), fish,
and eggs
Pulses 39% 43% 36%
(legumes), nuts,
and seeds
Sugar and salt 27% 31% 24%
Fruits (orange 12% 18% 8%
and other)
Dairy 8% 10% 8%

VII. Economic Vulnerability

Economic vulnerability is measured using the Food Expenditure Share (FES) indicator because it is
difficult and costly to generate poverty line data. This indicator is based on the premise that the
greater the importance of food within household’s overall budget (relative to other consumed
items/services) the more economically vulnerable the household.

Figure 6 shows that the proportion of households that spend more than 65% of their expenditures
on food is 81% of the sampled households. This is very high, and it implies that most households
are likely food insecure and highly vulnerable to shocks since they don’t have disposable income
to buffer these. It also means that these households are unable to spend money on other
elements of well-being, or only a limited amount, such as education and health, which increases
vulnerability further. The figure also shows that the FES does not change a lot depending on the
sex of head of household. This likely implies that there is a difference in the level of total
expenditures because figure 2 showed that the food consumption score of female-headed
households is much worse than male-headed households. This is indeed the case: the survey
shows that in the last month before data was collected, households spent 2,396 MZN, on average.
However, when disaggregating this number, it becomes clear that male-headed households spent
2,792 MZN, on average, whereas female-headed households only spent a little more than half of
that amount: 2,091 MZN, on average. This difference is statistically significant at the lowest
significance levels (0.1%).

Of course, attention should also be given to the fact that it appears economic vulnerability was
actually higher for beneficiaries compared to non-beneficiaries, but an independent t-test of the
means for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries shows that the means are not significantly different
at the 5% significance level, nor at the 10% significance level (similar results were generated when
testing separately for (fe/)male beneficiary households vs (fe/)male non-beneficiary households).
The reason why economic vulnerability was not significantly lower compared to non-beneficiaries
is likely because data was collected at the peak of the lean season. At this point, almost all targeted
households are going through an extremely difficult period and struggle to find enough food.
Many don’t succeed in getting enough food and go hungry and/or have worse diets as a result.
Therefore, it is likely that almost all the cash that is received at this moment is used for food
meaning that food expenditures increase almost 1:1 with total expenditures, pushing up the food
expenditure share, rather than reducing it.

April 2019 Page  11

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

Figure 6: Food Expenditure Share (including by sex of head of household)

100%
5% 4% 5%
10% 12% 12%
90% 11% 12% 12%
14% 8% 11%
80%
21% 23% 22%
70%
22% 21%
19%
60%

50%

40%

30% 63% 61% 62%

56% 58% 57%

20%

10%

0%
non-beneficiaries beneficiaries non-beneficiaries beneficiaries non-beneficiaries beneficiaries

Male Female Total

75% - 100% 65% - 74.9% 50% - 64.9% 0-50%

VIII. Consumption-Based Coping

Coping strategies were analysed to determine the hardship faced by households, looking at the
frequency and severity of the food consumption behaviours that households engaged when they
faced shortages of food.

The Consumption-Based Coping Strategies Index (rCSI) is generated by asking households

whether in a 7-day period they had relied on the following consumption based coping strategies
because of lack of food: relied on less preferred foods; reduced meal portion size; reduced number
of meals, relied on help and reduced adult consumption so children could eat. The higher the
index, the more vulnerable the household is to food insecurity.

The most commonly used consumption-based coping strategies that was applied 4 or more days
in the last week were borrowing food or relying on help from friends/relatives as well as reducing
the number of meals eaten in a day. Around a third of the respondents indicated they had applied
these strategies 4 or more days in the last week.

Table 4 provides these details for all strategies as well as disaggregating these proportions by sex
of head of household. Independent t-tests of the means for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries
for each strategy showed that the means are not significantly different at the 5% significance level,
nor at the 10% significance level. Similar tests were done to analyse differences between male-
and female headed households and it was found that female-headed households borrowed

April 2019 Page  12

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

significantly more or relied more on help from friends or relatives than male-headed households,
and female-headed households limited portion size at meals significantly more often than male-
headed households.

Table 4: frequency of applying consumption-based coping strategies

Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries
Proportion of Proportion of Proportion of Proportion of
male-headed female- male-headed female-
households that households that households that households that
Consumption-based applied strategy applied strategy applied strategy applied strategy
consumption 4 or more days in 4 or more days 4 or more days 4 or more days
strategies the last week in the last week in the last week in the last week
Rely on less
preferred and less
expensive food 6% 10% 10% 7%
Borrow food, or rely
on help from friends
or relatives 29% 39% 29% 34%
Limit portion size at
meals 19% 35% 25% 24%
Restrict consumption
by adults for small
children to eat 25% 17% 18% 24%
Reduce number of
meals eaten in a day 33% 33% 34% 31%

Before drawing conclusions about the insignificant difference between beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries, it is good to first look at the overall rCSI. For the end-line survey, this figure was
estimated at 16.6, but it is difficult to analyse this number in isolation. Figure 7 shows the rCSI
values separated by gender of head of households and whether a household is a beneficiary
household or not. Independent t-tests of the means for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries for the
rCSI confirm that the difference is not statistically significant (and similar results were generated
when testing separately for (fe/)male beneficiary households vs (fe/)male non-beneficiary
households).

However, independent t-tests did reveal that the rCSI for male-headed households is significantly
bigger than for female-headed households. The latter is further evidence of the fact that female-
headed households have fewer income opportunities than male-headed households and are
forced to apply more coping-based strategies than male-headed households.

The reason why use of consumption-based coping strategies by beneficiaries is not significantly
lower compared to non-beneficiaries is again likely because data was collected at the peak of the
lean season. At this point, most targeted households are applying coping-based consumption
strategies to such an extent that although the cash helps people increase their food consumption
and dietary diversity significantly, consumption-coping based strategies continue to be necessary
to deal with challenges faced in the lean season.

April 2019 Page  13

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

Figure 7: Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI), by gender and beneficiary category
20.0
18.4
18.0 16.9 17.3
16.0 16.1
16.0 15.1

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
Non-beneficiaries Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries Beneficiaries

Male Female Total

Please note: the graph presents an index and not the percentage of households using these coping
strategies.

IX.Livelihood-Based Coping
The Livelihood-Based Coping Strategies Index (lCSI) is derived from a series of questions regarding
the household’s experience with livelihood stress and asset depletion during the 30 days prior to
survey. Responses are used to understand the stress and insecurity faced by households and
describes their capacity to regarding future productivity.

All strategies are classified into three broad groups, including stress, crisis and emergency
strategies:

• Stress strategies indicate a reduced ability to deal with future shocks due to a current
reduction in resources or increase in debts. In this survey it included whether a household
(i) sold household assets/goods (radio, furniture, television, jewellery etc.); (ii) purchased
food on credit or borrowed food; (iii) spent savings; and/or (iv) borrowed money.
• Crisis strategies directly reduce future productivity, including human capital formation. In
this survey it included whether a household (i) withdrew children from School; (ii)
harvested immature crops (e.g. green maize); and/or (iii) consumed seed stocks that were
to be saved for the next season
• Emergency strategies affect future productivity, but are more difficult to reverse or more
dramatic in nature. In this survey it included whether a household (i) sold house or land;
(ii) sold last female animals and/or; and (iii) entire household migrated.

April 2019 Page  14

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

Households engaging in routine economic activities that did not involve any of these strategies
would be considered equivalent to food secure on this indicator.

Figure 8 shows a summary of the proportions in which the different coping strategies are applied
by both beneficiary households and non-beneficiary households, separated by gender. Overall,
when looking at the last two bars, beneficiary households applied less emergency coping
strategies and more beneficiary households did not apply any livelihood coping strategies at all.

However, an Independent t-tests of the means for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries for the lCSI
showed that the means are not significantly different at the 5% significance level, nor at the 10%
significance level. The same was the case for male-headed households, but for female-headed
households the difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries was found to be significant
at the 5% significance level. The latter finding is important as it highlights that female-headed
households that receive cash assistance need to apply significantly less livelihood coping
strategies than female headed households that do not receive cash. More in-depth research,
including focus group discussions with communities, would be necessary to find out why the cash
assistance is more significant for livelihood support for female-headed households than for male-
headed households, but the finding supports a common view held in cash-based literature that
asserts that female-headed households are more likely to use cash transfers to invest in
productive activities than male-headed households.

Figure 8: Summary of Livelihood-Based Coping Strategies by gender and beneficiary status

100%

90%
35% 34% 37%
80% 42% 41%
46%
70%

60% 9%
18% 14%
8% 11%
50%
13%
40% 30%
28% 26% 27%
29%
30%
29%
20%
26%
10% 22% 22% 22% 18%
12%
0%
non-beneficiaries beneficiaries non-beneficiaries beneficiaries non-beneficiaries beneficiaries

Male Female Total

Emergeny coping strategies Crisis coping strategies

Stress coping strategies HH not adopting coping strategies

April 2019 Page  15

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

X. Consolidated Approach to Reporting Indicators of Food

Security
The Consolidated Approach to Reporting Indicators of Food Security (CARI) combines a suite of
food security indicators into a summary indicator –called the Food Security Index (FSI) - which
represents the population’s overall food security status. The food security console is the final
output of the CARI and aims to provide a clear snapshot of the rates of the different types of a
population’s food insecurity at quick glance.1

The console’s domains represent two key dimensions of food insecurity. The current status
domain employs food security indicators which measure the adequacy of households’ current
food consumption. Specifically, for this survey, this domain is based on the food consumption
score

The coping capacity domain employs indicators which measure households’ economic
vulnerability and asset depletion. Specifically, in this survey, this domain is based upon a
combination of the lCSI and the FES.

The CARI console for the end-line survey is highlighted in table 5 and 6 respectively for non-
beneficiaries and beneficiaries.

Table 5: CARI Console Cahora Bassa End-line Cash Pilot March 2019 – non-beneficiaries
Severely Moderately
Domain Indicator Food Food Marginally Food
Insecure Insecure Food Secure secure
Current Food
Status consumption FCS 29% 51% n/a 20%
Economic
vulnerability FES 57% 21% 11% 12%
Coping Asset
Capacity depletion lCSI 22% 27% 14% 37%
Food Security Index 21% 57% 21% 1%

Table 6: CARI Console Cahora Bassa End-line Cash Pilot March 2019 – beneficiaries
Severely Moderately
Domain Indicator Food Food Marginally Food
Insecure Insecure Food Secure secure
Current Food
Status consumption FCS 20% 53% n/a 27%
Coping Economic
Capacity vulnerability FES 62% 22% 12% 5%

1For more information on CARI, please see:

https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp271449.pdf?_ga=2.
71845459.1365137437.1548658098-28791242.1513737791

April 2019 Page  16

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

Asset
depletion lCSI 18% 29% 11% 41%
Food Security Index 13% 59% 26% 1%

Comparison of the CARI Consoles in table 5 and 6 should make clear that the cash pilot has been
successful in reducing the prevalence of households suffering from severe food insecurity (during
the peak of the lean season) with close to 40% (from 21% to 13%). An Independent t-tests of the
means for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries for the FSI showed that the means are significantly
different at the 5% significance level, meaning that beneficiary households have a significantly
better FSI than non-beneficiaries (during the peak of the lean season). Importantly, when doing
these tests by gender, the general result was confirmed for female-headed households but not
for male-headed households, meaning that the FSI for female-headed beneficiary households are
significantly better than non-beneficiary households, but that there is no significant difference
between male-headed beneficiary and non-beneficiary households.

Importantly, the gender-results should be put into context. Figure 9 highlights the FSI by both
gender and beneficiary category.

Figure 9: FSI by sex of head of household

100% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
90% 18% 21% 21% 26%
25%
80% 32%

70%

60%
56%
50% 57%
63%
58% 59%
40% 54%
30%

20%
25%
10% 21%
14% 12% 14% 14%
0%
non-beneficiaries beneficiaries non-beneficiaries beneficiaries non-beneficiaries beneficiaries

Male Female Total

Severaly food insecure Moderately food insecure
Marginally food secure Food secure

Although the difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries is significant for female-
headed households and not significant for male-headed households, figure 7 makes clear that
female-headed households maintain higher numbers of severely- and moderately food insecure
households. Indeed, an independent t-test of the means for male-headed households and female-
headed households for the FSI reveals that the FSI for male-headed households is significantly
higher than female-headed households. This does not come as a surprise; rather, it underlines the

April 2019 Page  17

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

vulnerability of female-headed households to food insecurity, making the cash-based assistance

even more important. Interestingly, the difference between male- and female-headed households
is rejected at the 3% significant level for non-beneficiaries, but only at the 5% significance level for
beneficiaries. This finding indicates that the evidence for the statistically significant gap between
male- and female headed households is higher for non-beneficiaries than beneficiaries, implying
that the cash-based programme has helped reduce the gap between male-and female headed
households in favour of female-headed households.

XI.Decision-making on use of cash

Figure 10 gives an oversight of who in the household decides on the way cash is spent. Differences
between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries are not statistically significant. Clearly, differences
between male-and female headed households are; a bigger proportion of male-headed
households indicate that decisions on spending of cash is shared.

Figure 10: Decision-making on use of cash in the household, by gender and beneficiary category
100%
90% 17%
24%
80%
56% 52%
70%
60%
50% 62%
61%
40% 7% 11%

30%
20% 37% 37%
10% 21%
15%
0%
non-beneficiaries beneficiaries non-beneficiaries beneficiaries
Male Female

Both female male

XII. Gender-based Violence

From all respondents, 7% of the households indicated they were aware of violence against women
in their community. Two-thirds of these 7% indicated this violence happened regularly on a
monthly or bi-monthly basis. Only 1% of respondents indicated that they had reported violence
against women in their community in the last three months; all these households indicated they
had reported this violence to the community leader. From all beneficiary households, 99%
indicated that the level of conflict had not increased after they started to receive cash, and 96% of
all households indicated they had not faced increased security problems (like burglaries) since
they started to receive cash from WFP.

April 2019 Page  18

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

XIII. Market Visit Frequency

Figure 11 provides an overview of the frequency with which households visit markets in (or close
to) their community, separated by both gender of the head of household as well as beneficiary
status. Importantly, Independent t-tests of the means for male-and female-headed households
for market visit frequency showed that the means are not significantly different at the 5%
significance level or 10% level. However, means for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries are
significantly different (at the 5% significance level), meaning here that beneficiary households visit
markets significantly more than non-beneficiary households. This finding highlights how cash-
based assistance stimulates local markets.

Figure 11: Market access, by gender of head of household and beneficiary status
100%

90%

80%

70%
67% 70%
75% 72%
60% 80% 78%

50%

40%

30%
21% 15% 18%
20%
15%
15%
14%
10% 8% 9%
8% 9%
4% 5% 6%
0% 2% 3% 1% 1% 4%
non-beneficiaries beneficiaries non-beneficiaries beneficiaries non-beneficiaries beneficiaries
male female total

Daily Weekly Twice a month Monthly

XIV. Preference for Transfer Modalities

Preference for transfer modalities are summarized in figure 12 and 13, including by sex of the
head of household, for the baseline survey and end-line survey respectively. Although it is not
possible to do independent mean tests between the baseline and end-line survey, attention
should be given to the big difference in preferences towards cash between baseline and end-line
surveys. Figure 13 shows that food preferences have stayed relatively stable over the course of
the programme, but cash preferences have risen sharply, especially for beneficiary households, at
the expense of voucher preference and people that did not have any preference at all. This
highlights how beneficiary households have come to appreciate and value cash-based assistance
over other modalities over the course of the cash pilot.

April 2019 Page  19

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

Figure 12: Preference for Transfer Modality (including by sex of head of household) baseline survey
100%
6%
13% 11%
90%

80%

70%

60% 54% 66% 58%

50%

40%

30%

20% 26% 24%

20%
10%
6% 8% 7%
0%
Male Female Total

No opinion Prefers food Prefers cash Prefers vouchers

Figure 13: Preference for Transfer Modality (including by sex of head of household and beneficiary
status) end-line survey
100% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2%
5%
90%

80%

70%
65% 56% 60%
60% 74% 73% 73%

50%

40%

30%
32% 29%
20% 25%
21% 22%
10% 24%
9% 8% 5% 8%
0% 1% 3%
non-beneficiaries beneficiaries non-beneficiaries beneficiaries non-beneficiaries beneficiaries
Male Female Total

No opinion Prefers food Prefers cash Prefers vouchers

April 2019 Page  20

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

XV. Understanding of Programme Selection

From all beneficiary households 74% indicated they knew why they were selected for assistance,
but 82% of these households indicated that they were selected by the community leaders. This is
not completely correct; community leaders play an important role in compiling initial lists on
behalf of the authorities, but these were verified by ADRM as explained in the background chapter.
In this context, WFP should do a better job to explain how households are selected for assistance
to prevent potential frictions within communities between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.

XVI. Mobile Phone- and M-PESA use

Beneficiary households we provided with phones, so they could collect cash as mobile-money
through M-PESA. 59% of the beneficiary households indicated they had not owned a phone before
WFP’s intervention. Moreover, 82% of beneficiary households indicated they used the phone for
other purposes (mainly communication) beyond receiving cash through M-PESA. 67% of the
beneficiaries noted they had not used M-PESA before and 33% of beneficiary households indicated
they were now using M-PESA for other purposes as well beyond receiving cash from WFP, for
example, buying food and phone credit. These findings highlight that the cash-based assistance
programme also increase people’s access to telecommunications and mobile money.

April 2019 Page  21

End-line Survey Cahora Bassa Cash Pilot

XVII. Acronyms
ADRM Association for Rural Development of Mágoè

CARI Consolidated Approach to Reporting Indicators of Food Security

CBT Cash-Based Transfers

CfW Cash for Work

FCS Food Consumption Score

FES Food Expenditure Share

FCS Food Consumption Score

FSI Food Security Index

lCSI Livelihood-Based Coping Strategies Index

INAS National Institute for Social Action

MZN Mozambican Metical

PSSB Basic Social Subsidy Programme

rCSI Consumption-Based Coping Strategies Index

WFP World Food Programme

April 2019 Page  22