Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

Food Security Analysis Techniques

Nächste SlideShare
Wird geladen in …3

Hier ansehen

1 von 67 Anzeige

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Aktuellste (20)


Food Security Analysis Techniques

  2. 2. 4.1 Potential Indicators of Household Food Security a. Demographic Indicators i. Household size and composition • A household’s size or composition is not static, but changes with biological lifecycle; while adjustment of household size or composition to recurrent food insecurity is a common strategy during prolonged economic crisis the trend is toward smaller consumption units. • On the other hand the larger/extended households are more likely than smaller/nuclear households to be associated with greater diversification of assets, income sources and crop cultivation, and less vulnerable to illness or death of.
  3. 3. • But the poorest households tend to have large young families; while households with female heads are often, but not always, disadvantaged. ii. Migration • There are seasonal migrations of able-bodied adults prior to or during peak agricultural labor periods and during dry seasons. • However, the distress migration of whole families is usually the last in a sequence of household responses and a clear indication that other coping strategies failed. • Migration in search of wage labor to enhance food security of households could be predicted six months in advance amongst some Rural Ethiopians.
  4. 4. iii. Ethnicity and region • Certain tribes, communities, ethnic, or caste groups may be historically or geographically more vulnerable to seasonal or chronic food insecurity. • This is because welfare levels often vary distinctly by region, community or tribes.
  5. 5. b. Market Indicators i. Income sources, changes in income and income flow • The distribution of income sources within a given community may be U-shaped implying that income diversification has different purposes and consequences for the most and least vulnerable. • Smallholders in farming spread risks through diversification of income sources most notably off- farm employment. • Otherwise, the riskier the environment, the more diverse economic activities relied upon will be; while the source and / or control of income may be more important than total income in influencing household- level of food security.
  6. 6. • The transition from subsistence to cash-cropping is associated with increased vulnerability and malnutrition among children and with increased household caloric intake or increased food expenditures. • The effect of commercialization of semi- subsistence agriculture on food consumption and nutritional status of vulnerable group has shown mixed results. • On the flow of income the income received seasonally in large sums will more likely be spent on lump-sum expenditures or consumer goods than on improved diets and other nutrition-related investments.
  7. 7. ii. Access to credit or loans • It has been noted that access to credits or loans is very instrumental to well-being of a given household. • This is because arising from these opportunities members of households can have access to acquire the available food in the market or food supply system. • Also observed is that access to traditional lines of credit through merchants’ collapses as collateral (for example livestock) disappears, especially during drought. • Studies observed that nearly half of south Indian households took loans during a particular drought, as most people felt the act of possessing loans was a considerable factor in maintaining minimum living conditions.
  8. 8. iii. Land ownership and control • Number of different plots may be a more sensitive indicator than total acreage since households with fragmented landholdings can take advantage of different micro-climates more than households with larger but often less diverse. • And access to seasonally flooded lowlands is an important buffering mechanism in drought-prone areas because of the moisture conditions of the soil to enhance possible farming activities in the region so as to sustain food security of the households.
  9. 9. iv. Land use practices • Access to good quality land and alternative employment sources may be more important in determining nutritional status of rural households than choice of crop. • Intensification of land use practices is one of the responses in a sequence of adjustment to stress by farmers as intercropping, multiple seed strains with different maturation periods/resistance to disease and braced mixture of available cultivars are important diversification strategies of African farmers to minimize risk of crop failure and enhance food security.
  10. 10. • Also as a result of land use, access to reserves of trees can significantly decrease the poor’s vulnerability to unforeseen event. • The percentage of cultivated land with planted tree crops can be used as a proxy for agro- climate conditions, which is positively associated with high yield of food.
  11. 11. iv. Sales of property (land, livestock, assets and food) • Distress sale of land is a desperate measure and tends to occur much later in the belt tightening process. • But if land is a household’s only asset it will only be sold if there is no other way to survive and often the land is first mortgaged. • The ability to market livestock for grain commonly determines who will survive a famine and who will not. • In addition, the sale of male animals before their optimum weight or of females before the end of their reproductive period is an indicator of food insecurity, although indicators related to livestock sales, prices or market demand/supply are sometimes due to over-stocking of livestock.
  12. 12. • Thus livestock sales occur normally, which do not necessarily imply a reduction of future productivity. • Successfully surviving drought depends upon a household’s ability to retain intact all its productive assets (including family labor supply) solely by cutting back on ceremonial forms of consumption and by liquidating non-productive assets. • Poor people became poorer by disposing of productive assets but it is important to distinguish sales of key assets from sale of assets which are primarily forms of insurance/ saving.
  13. 13. v. Capital equipment and other valuables • The number or diversity of assets may be a more useful indicator than net worth of assets: households with low number and diversity of productive assets may be more vulnerable to external shock and contingencies. • But low asset status is not necessarily synonymous with greatest poverty. • Otherwise some landless peasants actually owned valuable goods which they hire out, e.g. tractors and sewing machines as in the case of Tanzania.
  14. 14. • Wells as source of water for farming are crucially important assets to farmers for producing a regular grain surplus to ascertain food security in households as was in the case of Mali. • Diversified herds with different pasture needs are less vulnerable to drought and infection than more homogenous herds that may produce more meat and milk. • The importance is not between small versus large herds, but between owning no animals, at all and having at least some as a security while access to milk is indicated by having a female animal.
  15. 15. • Donkeys, mules and oxen are highly valued during famine and drought because they help perform valuable duties; and lack of access to these resources, primarily oxen made women particularly vulnerable to drought as was in the case of Ethiopia. • Owning consumer durables/semi-durables by a household to avoid borrowing from relatives or neighbors also determines security of a household as was observed amongst Indian women.
  16. 16. c. Proximate Indicators i. Ill-health • The main asset of most poor people is their physical bodies; and all producers are vulnerable to sickness and disability. • Work disabling accidents and or morbidity of household’s breadwinners are often the pivotal events which impoverish households making illness and ill-health useful indicators to influence food availability and accessibility within a household.
  17. 17. ii. Education • Very few households with at least one educated member starve as a result of food insecurity. • Women’s schooling, even after adjusting for income has a higher elasticity of nutrients demand than those for household size or income; while years of child schooling could be used as a proxy measure for household’s living standards.
  18. 18. iii. Food stores • Ability to store food post harvest and availability of stored food pre-harvest are important indicators to monitor household food security. • At the same time having two years household consumption requirements in store is seen as desirable for sustainability of a household food security as was in the case of Sudan. • Otherwise estimates of number of months stored grain will last are usually more accurate and culturally sensitive than asking farmers for volume estimate of stored quantity.
  19. 19. iv. Qualitative dietary changes • Shifting from preferred nutritious diets for growth and development to lowered status and unconventional foods e.g. starchy grains (maize and rice grains) are a normal occurrence in areas facing seasonal food deficits, but this may also indicate anticipated stress expected during the season. • Otherwise local sharing between families or households often intensifies when food is scarce. • It has also been noted that the importance and intensity of wild food use depends upon severity and length of food shortage, and to some extent the location of house labour to collect them.
  20. 20. • Households producing for auto-consumption are more likely to have greater dietary diversity than households producing primarily for market. • It is also noted that the correlation between dietary diversity and socio-economic status is positive and both are essentially precondition to food security.
  21. 21. v. Quantitative dietary changes • Fluctuations in consumption of main staples or in meal patterns are indicative of food insecurity in households. • Otherwise food consumption reduction is part of a deliberate and early strategic household’s response to scarcity and insecurity of food, while the number of meals per day is not a useful indicator of food security as was found out in Chad and Mali as missed meals do not necessarily imply food unavailability due to frequent eating outside the home or at work as was observed in India.
  22. 22. 4.2 Techniques of Food In/Security Analysis • Despite long-standing efforts to improve the food security situation of populations globally, food deprivation and its physical consequences remain a continuing problem in resource-poor areas throughout the world. • FAO estimated that, in 2010 alone, 925 million people worldwide did not have access to sufficient food to meet their dietary energy requirements. • Arguably, one of the first steps to effectively addressing food insecurity is to establish reliable methods for measuring it.
  23. 23. • In the absence of reliable measurement, it is not possible to target interventions appropriately, to monitor and evaluate programs and policies, or to generate lessons learned to improve the effectiveness of these efforts in the future.
  24. 24. 4.2.1 Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) • HFIAS is used to estimate the prevalence of food insecurity. • The method is based on the idea that the experience of food insecurity (access) causes predictable reactions and responses that can be captured and quantified through a survey and summarized in a scale. • The higher the score, the more food insecurity (access) the household experienced. The lower the score, the less food insecurity (access) a household experienced.
  25. 25. • Qualitative research with low-income households provided insight into the following ways that households experience food insecurity (access): – Feelings of uncertainty or anxiety over food (situation, resources, or supply); – Perceptions that food is of insufficient quantity (for adults and children); – Perceptions that food is of insufficient quality (includes aspects of dietary diversity, nutritional adequacy, preference); – Reported reductions of food intake (for adults and children); – Reported consequences of reduced food intake (for adults and children); and – Feelings of shame for resorting to socially unacceptable means to obtain food resources.
  26. 26. • The eighteen-question U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module (US HFSSM) asks respondents to describe behaviors and attitudes that relate to these various aspects, also called ‘domains’, of the food insecurity experience. • For example, a question relating to perceptions of insufficient quantity asks whether any adults had to eat less than they thought they should. • The uncertainty-related questions include one about whether the respondent worried that the household’s food would run out.
  27. 27. • Responses to the US HFSSM are summarized in a scale to provide a continuous indicator of the degree of a household’s food insecurity. • Cut-off points on the scale enable categorical classification of whether households are food secure or not. • These data are used to monitor food assistance programs and to report on national prevalence of household food insecurity. SEE TABLE 1 on page 9 and 10 _Handout
  28. 28. • The Household Food Insecurity Access Prevalence (HFIAP) indicator categorizes households into four levels of household food insecurity (access): food secures, mild, moderately and severely food insecure. • Households are categorized as increasingly food insecure as they respond affirmatively to more severe conditions and/or experience those conditions more frequently.
  29. 29. • A food secure household experiences none of the food insecurity (access) conditions, or just experiences worry, but rarely. • A mildly food insecure (access) household worries about not having enough food sometimes or often, and/or is unable to eat preferred foods, and/or eats a more monotonous diet than desired and/or some foods considered undesirable, but only rarely.
  30. 30. • A moderately food insecure household sacrifices quality more frequently, by eating a monotonous diet or undesirable foods sometimes or often, and/or has started to cut back on quantity by reducing the size of meals or number of meals, rarely or sometimes. • But it does not experience any of the three most severe conditions.
  31. 31. • A severely food insecure household has graduated to cutting back on meal size or number of meals often, and/or experiences any of the three most severe conditions (running out of food, going to bed hungry, or going a whole day and night without eating), even as infrequently as rarely. • In other words, any household that experiences one of these three conditions even once in the last four weeks (30 days) is considered severely food insecure.
  32. 32. 4.2.2 Household Food Consumption Score (FCS) • The Food Consumption Score (FCS) is a composite score based on dietary diversity, food frequency, and the relative nutritional importance of different food groups. • The FCS is calculated using the frequency of consumption of different food groups consumed by a household during the 7 days before the survey. • Scores are clustered into three groups; the results of the analysis categorize each household as having either poor, borderline, or acceptable food consumption.
  33. 33. • Dietary diversity is defined as the number of different foods or food groups eaten over a reference time period, not regarding the frequency of consumption. • Food frequency, in this context, is defined as the frequency (in terms of days of consumption over a reference period) that a specific food item or food group is eaten at the household level. • Food group is defined as a grouping of food items that have similar caloric and nutrient content. • Food item cannot be further split into separate foods. • However, generic terms such as ‘fish’ or ‘poultry’ are generally considered to be a food items for the purpose of this analysis.
  34. 34. • Condiment, is this context, refers to a food that is generally eaten in a very small quantity, often just for flavor. • An example would be a ‘pinch’ of fish powder, a teaspoon of milk in tea, spices, etc. • Uses: This composite score, measuring food frequency and dietary diversity, can be used in a variety of ways, including to: – Compare food consumption across geography and time. – Target households in need of food assistance. – Monitor seasonal fluctuations in food consumption. – Provide key diet information to early warning analyses.
  35. 35. Calculation of the Food Consumption Score (FCS) and Food Consumption Groups (FCGs) Calculation steps: I. Using standard Vulnerability Analysis Mapping (VAM) 7- day food frequency data, group all the food items into specific food groups (see groups in table below). II. Sum all the consumption frequencies of food items of the same group, and recode the value of each group above 7 as 7. III. Multiply the value obtained for each food group by its weight and creates new weighted food group scores IV. Sum the weighed food group scores, thus creating the food consumption score (FCS). V. Using the appropriate thresholds (see below), recode the variable food consumption score, from a continuous variable to a categorical variable.
  36. 36. Table 2: Standard Food Groups with current standard weights FOOD ITEMS (examples) Food groups (definitive) Weight (definitive) (X) Consumption frequencies (Y) Multiply weight with consumption frequencies (X * Y) 1 Maize , maize porridge, rice, sorghum, millet pasta, bread and other cereals Main staples 2 Cassava, potatoes and sweet potatoes, other tubers, plantains 2 Beans. Peas, groundnuts and cashew nuts Pulses 3 3 Vegetables, leaves Vegetables 1 4 Fruits Fruits 1 5 Beef, goat, poultry, pork, eggs and fish Meat and Fish 4 6 Milk yogurt and other diary Milk 4 7 Sugar and sugar products, honey Sugar 0.5 8 Oils, fats and butter Oil 0.5 9 Spices, tea, coffee, salt, fish power, small amounts of milk for tea. Condiments 0
  37. 37. • Once the food consumption score is calculated, the thresholds for the FCGs should be determined based on the frequency of the scores and the knowledge of the consumption behavior in that country/region. • The Food Consumption Score (FCS) is a proxy indicator of household food security based on the weighted frequency (no. of days in a week) of intake of 8 different food groups. • It is measured as: FCS= a1x1+ a2x2+ …+ a8x8 , Where i = food group, x = frequency, a = weight
  38. 38. • The typical thresholds are: FCS Profiles Food Consumption Score (FCS) Profiles 0-21 Poor 21.5-35 Borderline > 35 Acceptable
  39. 39. Advantages of FCS • A standardized and more transparent methodology. • A repeatable data analysis within a dataset (one analyst can easily reproduce the FCS on a dataset identical to that created on the same dataset by another analyst). • A comparable analysis between data sets (this does not imply that the score has the same meaning for all households in all contexts). • The FCS is also able to capture both Dietary Diversity and Food frequency.
  40. 40. Limitations of FCS • Doesn’t tell us the ‘food gap’ i.e. how much food is lacking in the diet as it doesn’t track quantities • Doesn’t account for individual nutritional requirements or seasonal variations • Needs to be adapted to local contexts • Often underestimates levels of food insecurity when compared against other food security indicators
  41. 41. 4.2.3 Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) • Dietary diversity (DD) relates to nutrient adequacy (coverage of basic needs in terms of macro- nutrients which include oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and an array of minerals and micro nutrients which consist of cobalt, chlorine, boron, iron, zinc, nickel, manganese, and copper) and to diet variety/balance, which are two of the main components of diet quality. • DD is thought to reflect the adequate intake of essential nutrients either at the household level (HDD), in which case it can be measured by a HDD score (HDDS) or by a Food Consumption Score (FCS), or at the individual level (IDD), in which case it can be measured by an IDD score (IDDS).
  42. 42. • DD is assessed through different scores that are derived from questionnaires. • Examples of these questionnaires can be found at the following address: http://www.foodsec.org/tools_nut.htm DD scores are defined as the number of foods or food groups consumed by an individual (IDDS) or by any member of the household inside the home (HDDS) over a reference time period. • The recommended reference time period is the last 24 hours. Food grouping can be different according to objectives, putting emphasis on energy-dense foods or micronutrient-rich foods. • In most cases, the final number of food groups varies from 5 to 14, depending on the main characteristic of the diet that the score intend to reflect (i.e. energy or micronutrient adequacy).
  43. 43. • Dietary diversity can be measured at the household or individual level through use of a questionnaire. • Most often it is measured by counting the number of food groups rather than the food items consumed. • Knowing that households consume, for example, an average of four different food groups implies that their diets offer some diversity in both macro- and micronutrients. • This is a more meaningful indicator than knowing that households consume four different foods, which might all be cereals.
  44. 44. • The following set of 12 food groups is used to calculate the HDDS: A. Cereals G. Fish and seafood B. Root and tubers H. Pulses/legumes/nuts C. Vegetables I. Milk and milk products D. Fruits J. Oil/fats E. Meat, poultry, offal K. Sugar/honey F. Eggs L. Miscellaneous
  45. 45. 4.2.5 Coping Strategy Index (CSI) • Coping strategies are defined as a response to adverse events or shocks. • According to Snel and Staring (2001) coping strategies refer to “all the strategically selected acts that individuals and households in a poor socio-economic position use to restrict their expense or earn some extra income to enable them to pay for the basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter) and not fall too far below their society’s level of welfare”
  46. 46. • Ellis (2000) defines coping strategies as the methods used by households to survive when confronted with unanticipated livelihood failure. • The strategies pursued by households differ in several aspects, that is, within the household and between households. • Due to varying degrees of wealth among households, different coping behaviors are adopted by households at different poverty levels. • In areas where households experience recurrent shocks to food security, such as regular periods of drought, household response is not arbitrary.
  47. 47. • Such coping strategies include, but are not limited to: – collection of wild foods; – migration in search of employment; – altering horticulture practices; – selling household assets, such as livestock or other possessions; – and rationing available food.
  48. 48. • The Coping Strategy Index (CSI) has been used to monitor household food security in emergencies as well as to assess the impact of various food aid interventions. • The CSI measures frequency and severity of a household’s coping strategies for dealing with shortfalls in food supply. • Data are weighted according to frequency and perceived severity of behavior, determined by community members in focus groups.
  49. 49. • Weighted scores are combined into an index that reflects current and perceived future food security status. • Comparison of scores and averages provides a summary of overall household food security and establishes a baseline for monitoring drought trends and impact of interventions.
  50. 50. • The coping strategies index includes four categories of strategies: consumption, expenditure, income, and migration. 1. Consumption strategies include: – buying food on credit, – relying on less-preferred maize substitutes, – reducing the number of meals eaten per day, – regularly skipping food for an entire day, – eating meals comprised solely of vegetables, – eating unusual wild foods, – restricting consumption of adults so children can eat normally, and – feeding working members at the expense of nonworking members.
  51. 51. 2. Expenditure strategies include:- – avoiding health care or – education costs in order to buy food. 3. Income strategies include:- – selling household and – livelihood assets such as livestock. 4. Migration strategies include:- – sending children to relatives’ or friends’ homes or – migrating to find work.
  52. 52. • The CSI is an inverse measure. • Increased use of coping strategies indicates a decrease in food security. • Likewise, a decrease in food security results in increased frequency and severity of coping strategies. • Thus, an analysis of coping strategies indicates a decreasing food security situation when coping strategies accelerate from temporary measures (e.g., reduction in number or quality of meals for a brief, defined time period) from which a household can recover to measures that undermine future lives and livelihoods and damage social, financial, physical, or natural assets irreversibly.
  53. 53. Measuring the Coping Strategy Index • The Coping Strategy Index (CSI), a tool developed by the World Food Programme, is commonly used as a proxy indicator for access to food. • It is a weighted score that allows one to measure the frequency and severity of coping strategies. Data collection • Data is collected on the number of days in the last thirty days a household used a specific coping strategy due to a shortage of food and/or income. • A thirty day recall period is used to make the CSI as precise as possible. • It allows to capture information on as many coping strategies as possible, especially the most severe.
  54. 54. • As coping strategies are complex behaviors, which are inherently context and time specific, the list of coping strategies used was determined and ranked by the local community. • During a series of Focus Groups Discussions (FGDs), women were asked to name coping strategies used due to a shortage of food or money to buy food. • The final list was developed using those which had been the most frequently mentioned. • A separate set of FGDs were conducted to establish their severity.
  55. 55. Table 4: shows the list of coping strategies in the chars context used to calculate the CSI a long with their severity. Order Coping Strategies 1 Reducing quantity of food 2 Collecting wild vegetables (spinach) 3 Eating twice a day 4 Mother skips a meal/ eats less for children 5 Reducing quality of food 6 Taking money from savings 7 Taking food loan 8 Selling hens and ducks 9 Eating rice with salt and/or chilies 10 Eating once a day 11 Selling goats and sheep 12 Taking money loan with interest to buy food
  56. 56. Calculating the CSI • The CSI of a household is calculated by multiplying the frequency of coping strategies used in the last thirty days with their respective severity weights. • The sum of the scores is then used to determine the CSI (see table 5)
  57. 57. Table 5: Calculating a household’s CSI Due to a shortage of food and income, how many days in the last 30 days did any household member ………? Coping strategy Number of days Severity weight Frequency X weight Reducing quantity of food 20 1 20 Collecting wild vegetables (spinach) 30 2 60 Eating twice a day 15 3 45 Mother skips a meal 15 4 60 Reducing quality of food 0 5 0 Taking money from savings 3 6 18 Taking food loan 0 7 0 Selling hens and ducks 1 8 8 Eating rice with salt and/or chilies 10 9 90 Eating once a day 5 10 50 Selling goats and sheep 1 11 11 Taking money loan with interest to buy food 0 12 0 Total CSI 362
  58. 58. • The higher the CSI, the more food insecure a household is, as a household is using coping strategies more frequently and/or more severe ones.
  59. 59. 4.2.5 Household Hunger Scale (HHS) • The HHS is a household food deprivation scale. The approach used by the HHS is based on the idea that the experience of household food deprivation causes predictable reactions that can be captured through a survey and summarized in a scale. • This approach sometimes referred to as an “experiential” or “perception-based” method of collecting data.
  60. 60. • The HHS is most appropriate to use in areas of substantial food insecurity. In those settings, the HHS can be used for a variety of objectives, including to: – Monitor the prevalence of hunger over time across countries, or regions, to assess progress towards meeting international development commitments – Assess the food security situation in a country, or region, to provide evidence for the development and implementation of policies and programs that address food insecurity and hunger – Monitor and evaluate the impact of anti hunger policies and programs, including those that are funded by a specific donor across a number of cultures and countries – Provide information for early warning or nutrition and food security surveillance – Inform standardized food security/ humanitarian phase classifications
  61. 61. • To collect HHS data, it is very important that the full set of HHS questions be used. • Project staff should not pick and choose certain HHS questions for inclusion in the questionnaire, because it is the set of HHS questions—not the use of each HHS question independently—that has been validated as a meaningful measure of household food deprivation. • In addition, a 4-week (30-day) recall period should always be used for collecting HHS data. It is not recommended to use a different recall period for several reasons. • Longer recall periods pose a risk of measurement bias due to problems with accurate recall over an extended period of time, and a recall period shorter than 4 weeks (30 days) may not capture the full extent of the deprivation experience, since fluctuations of food accessibility are common within a month.
  62. 62. • It is important to note that the HHS focuses on the food quantity dimension of food access and does not measure dietary quality. • Additionally, because the HHS is a household level indicator, it does not capture data on food availability or food utilization, which are other components of food security typically measured at the national level (availability) and individual level (consumption/utilization).
  63. 63. • Ideally, the HHS should not be used as a unique, stand-alone measure of food insecurity but instead as one of a suite of tools to measure complementary aspects of food insecurity. • Other components of a household food insecurity assessment toolkit might include anthropometric data on women and children; measures of household income, expenditure, and food production and consumption; and information on coping strategies and household and individual dietary diversity.
  64. 64. • The following Table shows the recommended format for the HHS module. No. Question Response Option Code Q1 In the past [4 weeks/30 days], was there ever no food to eat of any kind in your house because of lack of resources to get food? 0 = No (Skip to Q2) 1 = Yes |___| Q1a How often did this happen in the past [4 weeks/30 days]? 1 = Rarely (1–2 times) 2 = Sometimes (3–10 times) 3 = Often (more than 10 times) |___| Q2 In the past [4 weeks/30 days], did you or any household member go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food? 0 = No (Skip to Q3) 1 = Yes |___| Q2a How often did this happen in the past [4 weeks/30 days]? 1 = Rarely (1–2 times) 2 = Sometimes (3–10 times) 3 = Often (more than 10 times) |___| Q3 the past [4 weeks/30 days], did you or any household member) go a whole day and night without eating anything at all because there was not enough food? 0 = No (Skip to the next section 1 = Yes |___| Q3a How often did this happen in the past [4 weeks/30 days]? 1 = Rarely (1–2 times) 2 = Sometimes (3–10 times) 3 = Often (more than 10 times) |___|
  65. 65. Recoding of the HHS data collected Recoding of the HHS Data Collected Step 1. The first step is to recode the responses to each frequency-of-occurrence question from three frequency categories (“rarely,” “sometimes,” “often”) into two frequency categories (“rarely or sometimes” and “often”). • To avoid losing the original data collected, create a new variable for each frequency of- occurrence question. • Do not overwrite the original data. • Here, we refer to the new variables created for each frequency-of occurrence question as New Q1, New Q2, and New Q3.
  66. 66. • For each of the new variables created, a frequency response of “rarely” (originally coded as “1”) is coded as “1”; a frequency response of “sometimes” (originally coded as “2”) is coded as “1”; and a frequency response of “often” (originally coded as “3”) is coded as “2”. Step 2. Next, add a code of “0” for households that replied “No” to each corresponding occurrence question. Once this step is completed, all households should have a value of 0, 1, or 2 for each of the three new variables created, New Q1, New Q2, and New Q3. Step 3. The values of New Q1, New Q2, and New Q3 are then summed for each household to calculate the HHS score. • If the tabulation has been carried out correctly, each household will have an HHS score between 0 and 6. • These values are then used to generate the HHS indicators.
  67. 67. Table 2: HHS Categorical Indicator Household Hunger Score Household Hunger Categories 0-1 Little to no hunger in the household 2-3 Moderate hunger in the household 4-6 Severe hunger in the household