Transcript Livelihood Vulnerability and Nutritional Assessment of

Livelihood Vulnerability and
Nutritional Assessment
of Rural Kassala and Red Sea
State
Sudan
June 2005
Main Objectives
• Determine if current livelihood conditions
indicate an impending crisis
• Assess levels of chronic structural
vulnerability and poverty and malnutrition
in Eastern Sudan
• Determine current level of food deficit
• Recommend food aid and non-food aid
interventions
Methodology
• HH livelihood survey to gain a greater
understanding of livelihood systems and to
quantify the depth and breadth of food
insecurity and livelihood vulnerability.
• Nutritional survey including
anthropometric measurements of children
under 5 and pregnant and/or lactating
women, consumption patterns, and
morbidity and mortality data.
Methodology Cont.
• Qualitative survey to provide an indepth understanding of the livelihood
context for to interpret the quantitative
results and to identify underlying causes of
food insecurity and vulnerability.
HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD SECURITY: A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS
CONTEXTS,
CONDITIONS
AND TRENDS
LIVELIHOOD
RESOURCES
INSTITUTIONAL
PROCESSES &
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURES
LIVELIHOOD
STRATEGIES
Policy
Natural Capital
Economic
Economic/Financial
Capital
Environmental
State
Formal Civil
Society
Food Security
Production and
Income
Activities
Income Security
Education Security
Health Security
Human Capital
Habitat Security
Infrastructure
Demography
LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES
Nutritional Security
Social
Political
SUTAINABLE
Social Capital
Informal Civil
Society
Historical
Private Sector
Processing,
Exchange and
Marketing
Activities
Social Network Security
Safety
Environmental Security
Life Skills Capacity
Contextual analysis of
conditions and trends
and assessment of
policy setting
Analysis of
Analysis of livelihood
Analysis of livelihood
institutional/organizational
strategy portfolios
resources; trade-offs,
influences
on
access
to
livelihood
and pathways
combinations,
resources
and
composition
of
sequences, trends
livelihood strategy portfolio
Analysis of outcomes
and trade-offs
Modified from Scoones, 1998
Sampling Framework
• 2 states: Kassala and RSS
• Nutritional survey: 30 clusters of 30
children each in both states
• HH livelihood survey: 30 clusters of 15
HHs in both states
• Qualitative survey: 6 villages per state representative of each locality (12 in total)
Cluster Selection
• Random selection of clusters proportional
to population size.
• Based on GoS census data projection.
• Selected 40 clusters in each state
(including 10 back up clusters).
Household Selection
• Random selection of HHs upon arrival.
• Identified center of the cluster and spun a
pen to identify initial sampling direction.
• Randomly selected first HH from direction
of pen – next HH was first on the right
when facing out of the HH door.
• Marked HHs with numbered paper for
identification by both survey teams.
Household Selection cont.
• Continued until reached intended sample
for each cluster:
– 32 children for nutrition survey (2 back up)
– 15 HHs for livelihood survey
• Livelihood survey conducted interview in
first 15 HHs selected.
Household Selection cont
• The Livelihood survey interviewed first 15
randomly selected HHs regardless of HH
composition. (914 HHs total)
• The Nutrition survey completed questionnaire
and anthropometric measurements for all HHs
with children < 5; (1900 HHs and 1875 children
under 5 total)
• Anthropometrics data also collected for HHs
with pregnant and/or lactating women;
• Mortality data was collected for all households
surveyed (1948 HH total)
Linking Data
• The Livelihood and Nutrition data for all of
first 15 randomly selected HHs with
children < 5 were linked by cluster and HH
numbers.
• Total of 852 HHs linked. (i.e. nutrition
information and household livelihood
information collected from the same
household)
Quantitative Data Analysis
• Data provided livelihoods profile including HH
demographics, income, production, assets ,
and reliance on negative coping strategies.
• Data provided state-level nutritional statistics
for children < 5 and pregnant and lactating
women
• Data identified HH livelihood factors and
characteristics which were significantly related
to the presence of both moderate and severe
malnutrition of children < 5.
Qualitative Data Analysis
• Data collected through PRA techniques
including key informant interviews,
interactive tools and direct observations.
• Qualitative data provided in-depth
understanding of local livelihood systems.
• Data provided context and constraints
leading to food insecurity.
Lessons Learned I
• Census data was often outdated as
communities had migrated or dispersed
and back up clusters were utilized. This
may have skewed representation at
locality level.
• Dispersed settlement patterns of the
communities increased time required for
sampling procedure.
Lessons Learned II
• Difficult to avoid duplication of interview
questions – basics of demographics were
starting point for both Livelihood and
Nutrition surveys.
• Difficulty in conveying importance of
random sampling - village leaders wanted
sample to include members of each of
multiple tribes.
Lessons Learned III
• Used MoH list for causes of mortality and
morbidity. Many respondents cited other
as cause for mortality – actual causes of
death not accurately recorded in many
cases.
Survey Findings
Factors with a significant relationship to the
presence of malnutrition in children <5 in HH:
• Literacy of head of household
• High Dependency ratio
• Low total household income
• High Household coping strategies index
Survey Findings Cont.
Factors with a significant relationship to the
presence of malnutrition in children <5 in HH:
• Time required to reach water source
• Average amount of money spend on water per
week
• Main water source (unprotected)
• Number of months of household food insecurity
in the last year