brace impact evaluation: phase ii baseline

BRACE IMPACT EVALUATION: PHASE II BASELINE

Findings from Upper Nile and Western Bahr el Ghazal StatesJuba, 31 October 2013

www.southsudan-braceproject.org

http://www.southsudan-braceproject.org/

WH

AT IS ...WHAT is BRACE?

“Building Resilience through Asset Creation and Enhancement” (BRACE) – 2012 until 2015

Food and cash transfers to householdsBuilds skills, physical assets and knowledge

To strengthen household and community resilience.

FFA: ‘Food For Assets’ in 3 states – Northern Bahr el Ghazal & Warrap State (Phase I), & Western Bahr el Ghazal (Phase II)

Funded by:

Implemented by:

Through: Local Partners

WHAT is BRACE Impact Evaluation?

An Impact Evaluation of BRACE FFA activities using two complementary methodologies:

Household Economic Analysis (HEA) methodology Focus Group Discussions

Quasi-experimental methodology Household interviews Community discussions

Funded by:

Implemented by:

LIVELIHO

OD

ZON

E – IRON

STON

E PLATEAUIronstone Plateau livelihood zone

LIVELIHO

OD

ZON

ES – EASTERN FLO

OD

PLAINS AN

D N

ILE & SO

BAT RIVERSEastern Flood Plains livelihood zone Nile and Sobat Rivers livelihood zone

WEALTH

GRO

UP CH

ARACTERISTICS – IRON

STON

E PLATEAUHEA Wealth Group Characteristics – Ironstone Plateau (Western Bahr el Ghazal State)Wealth Group

Proportion of population belonging to Wealth Group

Livelihoods expenditure/12 months/SSP

Land Area Cultivated

Crops Cultivated Livestock/Asset Holding

Very Poor 32% 0-110 0.5-1 feddan

Maize, sorghum, groundnut, sesame, pumpkin, okra

4-5 hens and 0-1 beehives

Poor 25% 111-355 0.5-1.5 feddanMaize, sorghum, groundnut, sesame, pumpkin, okra

0-3 goats, 3-5 hens, 0-2 beehives

Middle 28% 356-790 2-2.5 feddanMaize, sorghum, groundnut, sesame, pumpkin, okra, millet, cow pea

2-3 cattle, 3-4goats, 0-4 sheep, 5-7 hens, 0-4 beehives

Better-off 15% 791+ 2-4 feddan

Maize, sorghum, groundnut, sesame, pumpkin, okra, millet, cow pea

4-5 cattle, 6-14 goats, 5-9 sheep, 8-12 hens, 0-2 fishing nets, 0-6 beehives

1 feddan = 0.42 hectare

WEALTH

GRO

UP CH

ARACTERISTICS –NILE &

SOBAT RIVERS

HEA Wealth Group Characteristics – Nile & Sobat Rivers (Upper Nile State)

Wealth Group





Very Poor

23%0-120 0.5-1 feddan

Maize, sorghum, cowpeas, sesame, pumpkin, okra

1-3 cattle, 1-3 goats, 0-3 sheep, 2-4 hens, 0-1 fishing spear

Poor 27% 121-340 1.01-1.5 feddanMaize, sorghum, cowpeas, sesame, pumpkin, okra

3-5 cattle, 3-6 goats, 3-5 sheep, 4-6 hens, 1 fishing spear

Middle 37%

341-700 1.51-2.5 feddanMaize, sorghum, cowpeas sesame, pumpkin, okra, tomatoes

5-15 cattle, 6-12 goats, 5-10 sheep, 6-10 hens, 0.5-1 fishing net, 1-2 fishing spears

Better-off

13%701+ 2.51-4.5 feddan

Maize, sorghum, cowpeas, sesame, pumpkin, okra, tomatoes

15-25 cattle, 12-20 goats, 10-15 sheep, 10-18 hens, 1 fishing net, 1-2 fishing spears


WEALTH

GRO

UP CH

ARACTERISTICS – EASTERN FLO

OD

PLAINS

HEA Wealth Group Characteristics – Eastern Flood Plains (Upper Nile State)

Wealth Group





Very Poor 30% 0-300 1-2 feddan

Sorghum, maize, cowpea, pumpkin, okra

0-1 cattle, 4-6 goats, 1-2 sheep, 4-6 hens, 0-1 fishing nets, 1 hook

Poor 28%301-800 2 feddan

Sorghum, maize, cowpea, pumpkin, okra

2-6 cattle, 6-10 goats, 2-5 sheep, 6-8 hens, 1-2 fishing nets, 1-3 hooks

Middle25%

801-2700 3-4 feddanSorghum, maize, cowpea, pumpkin, okra

6-20 cattle, 10-20 goats, 5-15 sheep, 8-15 hens, 2-4 fishing nets, 2-4 hooks

Better-off17% 2701+ 4-6 feddan

Sorghum, maize, cowpeas, pumpkin, okra, groundnuts, tobacco

20-30 cattle, 20-35 goats, 15-25 sheep, 15+ hens, 4-6 fishing nets, 4-6 hooks


BRACE HO

USEH

OLD

INTERVIEW

S – BY LIVELIHO

OD

ZON

ES

LIVELIHO

OD

S EXPEND

ITURE

0 45 89 133 178 233 290 371 482 605 745 900 11021305164519602470327068000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Households by expenditure on livelihoods in SSP/most recent 12 months

Num

ber o

f hou

seho

lds

INTERVIEW

LOCATIO

NS – BY FSM

S COU

NTY-LEVEL FO

OD

INSECU

RITY RATIN

G

FOO

D IN

SECURITY RATIN

G CALCU

LATION

Food Insecurity Rating – developed by WFPs Food Security Monitoring System (FSMS)

Food Consumption

Poor Borderline Acceptable

Ability to access food

Poor

Coping Strategies Index

High Medium Low

Medium


High Medium Low

Good


High Medium Low

Food Secure

Moderately Food Insecure Severely Food Insecure

SAMPLE

Severely food insecure county

Moderately food insecure

county

Food secure county

Severely food insecure county

Moderately food insecure

county

Food secure county

Upper Nile Western Bahr el Ghazal

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

11%2% 4% 0% 1%

27%

47%

24%

45%

24% 24%

38%

43%

74%

51%

76% 75%

35%

Household level food insecurity - by county level food inseucurity

Food Secure household

Moderately Food Insecure household

Severly Food Insecure household

THE SAM

PLESample by household level food insecurity , wealth group and FFA participation/eligibility

Sample by Livelihood Zone

HOUSEHOLDS Very Poor Poor Middle/ Better-off TOTAL

Food Secure 1,443 323 262 2028

Non-FFA 413 97 110 620FFA 1030 226 152 1408Moderately Food Insecure 884 159 65 1108

Non-FFA 315 29 24 368FFA 569 130 41 740Severely Food Insecure 92 89 21 202

Non-FFA 45 6 1 52FFA 47 83 20 150

TOTAL 2,419 (72%) 571 (17%) 348 (10%) 3,338

HOUSEHOLDS Very Poor % Poor % Middle/Better-off % TOTAL %

Eastern Flood Plains 757 81% 120 13% 53 6% 930 28%

Nile & Sobat Rivers 833 69% 156 13% 219 18% 1208 36%

Ironstone Plateau 867 70% 296 24% 79 6% 1242 37%

TOTAL 2,457 73% 572 17% 351 10% 3,380 100%

FOOD INSECURITY – STATE, WEALTH, COUNTY AND PRIOR FFA/GFD PARTICIPATION

FOO

D IN

SECURITY – BY LIVELIH

OO

D ZO

NE

Eastern Floodplains Nile and Sobat Rivers Ironstone PlateauUpper Nile WBeG

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

4% 4% 10%

45%28%

29%

50%68% 62%

Household level food insecurity - by livelihood zone

Food SecureModerately Food InsecureSeverely Food Insecure

FINDINGSHigher proportion of food insecure households in the Eastern Flood Plains LZ (50%)

compared to Nile and Sobat Rivers (32%) and Ironstone Plateau (38%)

No significant difference in proportion of food insecurity when comparing states – 39% in Western Bahr el Ghazal and 40% in Upper Nile

Similar to FSMS data (Round 10, June 2013): 39% of households in Western Bahr el Ghazal and 38% of households in Upper Nile were found to be food insecure.

Higher proportion of severely food insecure households in Western Bahr el Ghazal (10%) compared to Upper Nile (3%).

FOO

D IN

SECURITY – BY W

EALTH G

ROU

P AND

LIVELIHO

OD

ZON

E

FINDINGS• Recall that highest proportion of food insecure households was found in the Eastern Flood Plains livelihood

zone in Upper NileOn the Eastern Flood Plains, the Very Poor were much more likely to be food insecure (67%) than

Middle/Better-off households (13%)

Same in Nile and Sobat River – 34% of Very Poor households were food insecure, compared to 19% of Middle/Better-off

Trend reversed in Western Bahr el Ghazal – Very Poor were less likely to be categorised as food insecure (32%) compared to Middle/Better-off (47%).

Middle/ Better-off

Poor Very Poor Middle/ Better-off

Poor Very Poor Middle/ Better-off

Poor Very Poor

Eastern Floodplains Nile and Sobat Rivers Ironstone PlateauUpper Nile Western Bahr el Ghazal

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2% 2% 5% 8% 4%25% 25%

3%11% 16%

52%

19%

32% 30%

22% 30%

29%

87% 82%

43%

81%60% 66%

53% 44%68%

Household level food insecurity - by wealth group, and livelihood zone


FOO

D IN

SECURITY – BY CO

UN

TY

FINDINGS

Upper Nile: Longochuk County highest proportion of food insecure households (72%)

Western Bahr el Ghazal: Jur River County highest proportion food insecure households (65%)

Long

ochu

k

Ulan

g

Fash

oda

Luak

piny

/Nas

ir

Mel

ut

Mal

akal

Akok

a

Jur R

iver

Raga

Wau

Upper Nile Western Bahr elGhazal

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

25%11% 2% 6% 0% 2%

27%

1%

47%

46%53%

30% 34% 24% 21%

38%

24% 24%

28%43% 45%

64% 66% 74% 76%

35%

75% 76%

Household level food insecurity - by county


PRIOR FFA/G

FD PARTICIPATIO

N – BY LO

CATION

AND

STATE

FINDINGS• Baseline data collection included communities selected for BRACE FFA participation (treatment) and those that were not selected

(control) in Upper Nile – and selection from all bomas in Western Bahr el Ghazal (all eligible for FFA selection)• Some households had already participated in FFA, either through BRACE in Upper Nile or through previous interventions in Western

Bahr el Ghazal• Based on baseline data households were split into four groups – those that had 1) already participated in FFA; 2) switched from FFA to

GFD; 3) participated in GFD; 4) not participated in any intervention• Aim of the impact evaluation is to assess difference in change of food security and resilience status of households, depending on these

four ‘starting points.’

FFA participation was actually higher in Western Bahr el Ghazal where 23% of households had participated in FFA during the 12 months preceding the survey compared to 10% in Upper Nile.

In Upper Nile, 39% of households at FFA locations had participated in FFA and the vast majority of households at non-FFA locations (96%) had not participated in any intervention at all - just 4% had participated in GFD.

Non-FFA location FFA location FFA/Non-FFA locationUpper Nile Western Bahr el Ghazal

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

4%

6%14%

96%

55% 64%

20%8%

19%15%

Prior participation in FFA/GFD interventions - by FFA/Non-FFA location and and State

NoneGFDFFA/GFDFFA

PRIOR FFA/G

FD PARTICIPATIO

N – BY W

EALTH G

ROU

P, LOCATIO

N AN

D

STATE

FINDINGS

In Upper Nile: Very Poor households were the least likely to have participated in any intervention – 42% had taken part compared to 55% of Poor and 54% of Middle/better-off households.

Trend reversed in Western Bahr el Ghazal: Poorer households were more likely to have participated in FFA and/or GFD – 37% of Very Poor households had participated compared to 30% of Middle/better-off households.

Future rounds of surveying will aim to establish whether FFA participation is associated with an increase in wealth or whether wealthier households are more likely to participate in FFA.

Mid

dle/

Bet

ter-o

ff

Poor

Very

Poo

r

Mid

dle/

Bet

ter-o

ff

Poor

Very

Poo

r

Non-FFA loca-tion

FFA location Non-FFA/FFA location

Upper Nile WBeG

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

4%

9% 6%5%

13% 11% 14%

96%

46% 45% 58% 70% 64% 63%

13% 21% 22% 6% 4% 9%

33% 28% 15%11% 21% 13%

Prior participation in FFA/GFD intervention - by wealth group, FFA/Non-FFA location and State

NoneGFDFFA/GFDFFA

FOO

D IN

SECURITY – PRIO

R FFA/GFD

PARTICIPATION

FINDINGS

In Western Bahr el Ghazal: more food insecure households amongst those that had not yet participated in FFA (39%) compared to those that had (35%).

But smaller proportion were severely food insecure (8%) compared to FFA households (14%). In Upper Nile: no difference in food security comparing FFA and Non-FFA locations in same LZ

Further rounds of surveying will attempt to identify whether the variation is attributable to FFA participation, or whether other factors drive this difference.

Not yet participated in FFA Participated in FFA0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

8% 14%

31% 21%

61% 65%

Household level food insecurity on the Ironstone Plateau (Western Bahr el Ghazal) - by previous FFA participation


DEMOGRAPHICS

DEM

OG

RAPHICS – AG

E AND

HO

USEH

OLD

SIZE

0-4

5-14

15-24

25-49

50+

5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

3,194

4,007

2,897

2,116

665

2,905

3,756

2,816

2,477

1,065

Population pyramid - Upper Nile and Western Bahr el Ghazal States

MaleFemale

Household members (n=25,989)

Age

gro

up

FINDINGS Majority of household members aged less than 15 years (54%) – higher than the proportion reported by the

latest census (44.4%).

Almost a quarter (24%) of household members were aged less than 5 – also higher than the 2008 census (16%).

Average age-dependency ratio was the same for households at FFA and Non-FFA locations in Upper Nile (1.9) – was higher in Western Bahr el Ghazal (2.2).

Average household size higher in Upper Nile (8.3) where 31% of households contained 10 or more members, compared to Western Bahr el Ghazal (6.9), where 17% of households had 10 or more members.

In Upper Nile: more than a third (37%) of households in Nile and Sobat Rivers contained 10 or more members, compared to 22% in the Eastern Flood Plains.

DEM

OG

RAPHICS – FO

OD

INSECU

RITY BY HO

USEH

OLD

SIZE AND

LIVELIH

OO

D ZO

NE

FINDINGS

Larger households were more likely to be food secure, across all livelihood zones.

Hence 66% of households with 10 or members in Eastern Flood Plains; 77% in Nile and Sobat Rivers; and 78% in Ironstone Plateau livelihood zones were found to be food secure.

The corresponding figure amongst households with 1-6 members was just 46% on the Eastern Flood Plains; 57% in Nile and Sobat Rivers; and 56% on the Ironstone Plateau.

10+ 9 7-8 1-6 10+ 9 7-8 1-6 10+ 9 7-8 1-6Eastern Floodplains Nile and Sobat Rivers Ironstone Plateau

Upper Nile Western Flood Plains

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3% 2% 5% 4% 3% 2% 4% 5% 3%10% 14% 10%

30%42%

52% 49%

20% 22%29%

38%

19%

22%26% 35%

66%56%

43% 46%

77% 75%66%

57%

78%68%

60% 56%

Household food insecurity by number of household members and livelihood zone


DEM

OG

RAPHICS – FO

OD

INSECU

RITY BY HO

USEH

OLD

SIZE, WEALTH

G

ROU

P AND

LIVELIHO

OD

ZON

E

FINDINGS

This effect remained when controlling for wealth amongst poorer households – larger households were more likely to be food secure when compared to smaller households in the same Poor or Very Poor wealth group

Up-per Nile Eastern Floodplains M/BO

Up-per Nile Eastern Floodplains

Poor 10+


Poor 9


Poor 7-8


Poor 1-6


Very Poor 10+


Very Poor

9


Very Poor 7-8


Very Poor 1-6

Up-per Nile Nile and So-bat

Rivers

M/BO


Rivers

Poor 10+


Rivers

Poor 9


Rivers

Poor 7-8


Rivers

Poor 1-6


Rivers

Very Poor 10+


Rivers

Very Poor

9


Rivers

Very Poor 7-8


Rivers

Very Poor 1-6

Western

Bahr el

Ghazal

Iron-ston

e Plateau M/BO

Western

Bahr el

Ghazal

Iron-ston

e Plateau

Poor 10+

Western

Bahr el

Ghazal

Iron-ston

e Plateau

Poor 9

Western

Bahr el

Ghazal

Iron-ston

e Plateau

Poor 7-8

Western

Bahr el

Ghazal

Iron-ston

e Plateau

Poor 1-6

Western

Bahr el

Ghazal

Iron-ston

e Plateau

Very Poor 10+

Western

Bahr el

Ghazal

Iron-ston

e Plateau

Very Poor

9

Western

Bahr el

Ghazal

Iron-ston

e Plateau

Very Poor 7-8

Western

Bahr el

Ghazal

Iron-ston

e Plateau

Very Poor 1-6

Severely Food Insecure

0.0188679245283019

0 0 0 0.0307692307692308

0.0460526315789478

0.0256410256410259

0.0598802395209585

0.0469973890339426

0 0.0819672131147541

0 0.0967741935483873

0.0754716981132075

0.0258302583025831

0.0333333333333333

0.04301075268817

2

0.0505050505050505

0.25316455696202

5

0.0952380952380953

0.24 0.30769230769230

8

0.3 0 0.0270270270270273

0.03791469194312

8

0.0308370044052865

Moderately Food Insecure

0.11320754716981

1

0.0909090909090911

0.16666666666666

7

0.13333333333333

3

0.2 0.38157894736842

6

0.46153846153846

4

0.56886227544910

2

0.56657963446475

7

0.19444444444444

6

0.27868852459016

4

0.27272727272727

3

0.22580645161290

3

0.43396226415094

8

0.19926199261992

6

0.23333333333333

4

0.30107526881720

7

0.41077441077441

3

0.21518987341772

2

0.20634920634920

7

0.28 0.29487179487179

5

0.36153846153846

5

0.184

0.20270270270270

3

0.25592417061611

4

0.34801762114537

5

Food Secure

0.86792452830189

2

0.90909090909090

9

0.83333333333333

4

0.86666666666666

7

0.76923076923076

9

0.57236842105262

7

0.51282051282051

7

0.37125748502994

4

0.38642297650130

8

0.80555555555555

6

0.63934426229509

1

0.72727272727272

7

0.67741935483871

0.49056603773585

3

0.77490774907749

1

0.73333333333333

4

0.65591397849462

4

0.53872053872053

9

0.53164556962025

3

0.69841269841269

8

0.48 0.3974358974359

0.33846153846153

8

0.816

0.77027027027027

6

0.70616113744075

9

0.62114537444934

5

5%

25%

45%

65%

85%

Household level food insecurity - by number of household members and wealth group

DEM

OG

RAPHICS – W

EALTH G

ROU

P BY GEN

DER O

F HO

USEH

OLD

HEAD

AN

D LIVELIH

OO

D ZO

NE

FINDINGSHouseholds identifying themselves as female headed were more likely to be poorer – 77% of female

headed households were Very Poor (77%) compared to 69% of male headed households

This effect remained when controlling for livelihood zone – the most marked difference is on the Ironstone Plateau, where 76% of female headed households were Very Poor, compared to 63% of male headed households.

• Households identifying themselves as female headed were actually more likely to be food secure (62%) compared to male headed households (60%). This trend remained when comparing households within the same livelihood zones.

Female Male Female Male Female MaleEastern Floodplains Nile and Sobat Rivers Ironstone Plateau


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

83% 80% 74% 66%76%

63%

13% 13%13%

13%

19%28%

4% 7% 13% 21%4% 9%

Household wealth group - by gender of household head and livelihood zone

Middle/ Better-offPoorVery Poor

DEM

OG

RAPHICS – FO

OD

INSECU

RITY BY RESIDEN

CE STATUS O

F H

OU

SEHO

LD H

EAD AN

D STATE

FINDINGS

Overall, IDP households were most likely to be food insecure (60%), followed by hosts (49%), migrants (35%) and returnees (32%).

This effect remained when comparing households in Western Bahr el Ghazal – while 63% of IDP households were found to be food insecure in Western Bahr el Ghazal, the corresponding proportion amongst Host households was 36%, followed by Migrants (32%) and Returnees (25%).

The effect did not remain when comparing households in Upper Nile.

IDP Host Migrant Returnee IDP Host Migrant ReturneeUpper Nile Western Bahr el Ghazal

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

8% 4% 0% 1%

44%

8% 2% 3%

30% 36% 50%34%

29%

29%30% 22%

63% 60%50%

65%

27%

63% 68%75%

Household food insecurity rating - by residence status and State


DEM

OG

RAPHICS – FO

OD

INSECU

RITY BY TRIBAL AFFILIATION

AND

STATE

FINDINGS

Food security amongst the six tribes that the majority of households were affiliated to.

In Upper Nile, Shilluk households were most likely to be food insecure (45%) followed by Nuer Gajiok (42%), other tribes (31%) and Dinka Dhongjol 23%).

In Western Bahr el Ghazal, Luo (Jur) households were found most likely to be food secure (58%) followed by Dinka Rek (45%), Balanda (24%) and other tribes (24%).

Shilluk Nuer Gajiok Other Dinka Dhongjol

Luo (Jur) Dinka Rek Balanda Other


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2% 7% 5% 3%

22%

0% 1%

43% 35%26%

20%

36%

33%

24% 22%

55% 58%69%

77%

42%55%

76% 76%

Household food insecurity - by tribal affilitation and State


LINEAR REGRESSION – FOOD INSECURITY

FOO

D IN

SECURITY – LIN

EAR REGRESSIO

NTHE MODEL

To explore the relative effect of demographic factors on household level food security, a linear regression model was fitted for Food Insecurity Rating as a response variable where:

Severely Food Insecure = 0Moderately Food Insecure = 1Food Secure = 2

Variables that were indicated as statistically insignificant were removed stepwise from the model until all variables were statistically significant at 5% level (p<0.05).

VARIABLES

Response variable: Food insecurity

Explanatory variables: Wealth group High food insecurity counties Prior FFA/GFD participation Household size Proportion of members aged less

than 15 Kinship ties Female household headship Residency status Tribal affiliation

FOO

D IN

SECURITY – LIN

EAR REGRESSIO

NLinear regression model – Food insecurity

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B

B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound

1

(Constant)1.359 .040 33.774 .000 1.280 1.438

Middle Better-off.115 .032 .058 3.645 .000 .053 .177

County Jur River-.699 .033 -.386 -20.854 .000 -.764 -.633

County Longochuk-.785 .075 -.168 -10.512 .000 -.932 -.639

Tot_HH.018 .002 .125 7.490 .000 .014 .023

Perc_U_15.002 .000 .068 4.269 .000 .001 .003

@1_8_Rel_HHs.042 .007 .115 6.431 .000 .029 .055

HHH ResStatus - IDP-.253 .055 -.074 -4.579 .000 -.361 -.145

HHH ResStatus - Returnee.100 .047 .034 2.118 .034 .007 .192

HHH Tribe - Nuer Gajiok-.317 .028 -.198 -11.315 .000 -.372 -.262

HHH Tribe - Shilluk-.192 .024 -.142 -8.082 .000 -.238 -.145

a. Dependent Variable: Food Security Rating

FOO

D IN

SECURITY – LIN

EAR REGRESSIO

NLinear regression model - Findings

Belonging to the Middle/better-off wealth group was associated with a 11.5% increase in food security bracket compared to the poorer wealth groups.

Living in Longochuk County was associated with a 78.5% decrease and in Jur River County with a 69.9% decrease in food security bracket, compared to other counties

Each additional household member was associated with a 1.8% increase in food security bracket.

Each additional five households that a household was related to by kinship were associated with a 4.2% increase in food security bracket.

Having an IDP household head was associated with a 25.3% decrease in food security bracket and a returnee household head with a 10% increase, compared to other households.

Nuer Gajiok tribal affiliation was associated with a 31.7% decrease in food security bracket and Shilluk tribal affiliation with a 19.2% decrease compared to other tribes.

oVariation when comparing the Poor and Very Poor wealth groups; FFA, GFD and no participation; female and male headship; migrant and host residency status; Dinka Rek, Dinka Dhongjol, Balanda and Luo and other tribal affiliations, was not statistically significant once controlling for the variables above.

THAN

K YOU

!Thank you!

The full dry season baseline report for Western Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile states will be released shortly – here we will explore food insecurity factors in detail, looking at food consumption, food sources, expenditures, income sources, coping strategies and other resilience indicators including health, water and sanitation.

All reports, primary and secondary data and mapping for the BRACE project can be found at: www.southsudan-braceproject.org

For further information and comments please do not hesitate to get in touch: [email protected]

http://www.southsudan-braceproject.org/

mailto:[email protected]

brace impact evaluation: phase ii baseline

Documents