Impact of COVID-19 on the welfare of rural households in Kenya (round 1)

Impact of COVID-19 on the welfare of
rural households in Kenya (round 1)
Michael K. Ndegwa
Pioneer Research and Empowerment Center (PioREC)
Funded by USAID

COVID-19 Kenya experience
▪ First case: March 13, 2020
▪ As of October 1, 2020, the day of completion of this report:
o 38,529 confirmed cases
o 24,908 recoveries – 64.6% recovery rate
o 711 deaths – 1.8% fatality rate
▪ Government actions:
o Different levels of lock down for different counties and at different times.
o International travel restrictions, mandatory quarantine at government managed premises
for international arrivals and eventual closure of airports and boarders for passenger
vessels. This has been relaxed significantly as at now
o People encouraged to work from home as much as possible and enforcement of social
distancing and wearing masks in public places.
o Educational institutions and religious places closed, and large gatherings banned – some
of these have been relaxed as well.
o Heightened testing and contact tracing
o Night curfews which continue to be reviewed as the situation improves.

Phone Survey
▪ Building on a baseline dual-headed household survey conducted in January-
February 2020 among a representative sample of rural farmers from Nakuru, Busia
and Laikipia counties.
▪ Targeted one principle decision maker in a household, either male or female, 250 of
each gender.
▪ First round of phone survey conducted in mid September where 287 women and
261 men (548 total) completed the survey; two more rounds of data collection by
mid December 2020 are in pipeline.
▪ Focus on behavioral responses to COVID-19, income changes, food and nutrition
security, water security, mobility, and access to agricultural extension services.
▪ An appreciation token of Ksh 200 ($2) was offered for each completed survey.

Survey implemented in
Busia, Laikipia and Nakuru
counties of Kenya

Location of respondents- Distribution across counties and
sub-counties
60 58
51
65
53
44 49 58
54
56
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Laikipia East Laikipia West Budalangi Molo Kuresoi North
Laikipia County Busia County Nakuru County
Numberofrespondents
Female Male

Speaker phone turned on or off:
▪ Only 8% of respondents who had their speaker phone on
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female respondent Male respondent Overall
Proportionofrespondents
Speaker phone turned off Speaker phone turned on

Challenges
▪ There were many respondents from the baseline who either did not have
or did not give us their phone numbers. This reduced our sampling frame
substantially and also left us with just a handful for replacements.
▪ There were quite a good number of respondents who we could not reach
on the numbers in our records while some were actually wrong numbers.
▪ We had a few who refused to participate and some gave us night
appointments saying that was the only time they were available.
▪ It took longer to achieve the training objectives since it was all virtual. We
had to introduce CAPI/CATI components to the enumerators informally
before the formal training
▪ Phone survey time increased due to call drops, network issues and
unreached numbers. We worked with village elders to reach those who
we could completely reach on phone after multiple attempts.

Households and respondents' characteristics
▪ 287 female (52%) and 261 male (48%) respondents were interviewed
▪ Almost all the men (98%) were married barely non was widowed while
60% of women were married and 30% widowed
▪ 16% female and 3% male respondents had no formal schooling
▪ 17% male and 8% female respondents had completed secondary school
▪ 26% came from female headed homes with a mean household size of 4.9
while 74% came from male headed homes with a mean size of 6.1
▪ More than three quarters (79%) of the respondents have farming or raising
livestock as their main activity

Income loss due to Covid-19
▪ 85% female and 82%
male suffered income
loss due to Covid-19
pandemic
▪ There was no statistically
significant differences
between respondents
and household heads
gender
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female Male Female Male
Respondent Gender Household head gender
Proportionofhouseholds
Yes No

Mechanisms to cope with loss of income
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Used
savings
Sold assets Borrowed
money
Consumed
less
Government
cash/inkind
transfer (***)
Did casual
jobs
NGO
cash/inkind
transfer
Started
small
businesses
Female Male
▪ Mainly, they coped with income
loss by using their savings, sale
of family assets, borrowing and
consuming less food than usual.
▪ Other self initiative coping
mechanisms were engaging in
casual/menial jobs and
businesses which were reported
by less than 10%.
▪ External support was not very
common. Only 20% of women
and 10% of men (p<1%)
received government transfers
and less than 10% reported
receiving support from NGOs

Worked in the last 7 days
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Been able to work in the last 7
days (*)
Spouse been able to work in the
last 7 daysProportionofhouseholds
Female Male
▪ Majority (82% female, 88% male;
p<10%) were able to work in the
week preceding the survey.
▪ Over three quarters indicated that
their spouses were also able to work
in that week; without significant
gender differences
▪ Roughly half of the men felt that their
hours worked and those of their
spouses were just the same as
before Covid-19.
▪ Roughly the same proportion of
women felt their work hours and
those of their spouses were less than
before
▪ Slightly more women worked longer
hours than before Covid-19, and this
was confirmed by their male spouses
as well

Time worked in the last 7 days compared to before COVID-19
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
More than before Less than before About the same as
before
More than before Less than before About the same as
before
Respondents working hours compared to before Covid 19
pandemic
Spouse working hours compared to before Covid 19
pandemic
Female Male

Comparing mobility before and during Covid-19
▪ Majority, 87%, indicated that their
mobility was curtailed by Covid-19
and hence could get around less
than before.
▪ Only 10% and 3% who could get
around either normally or more
than normal, correspondingly.
▪ Over 80% of both men and
women had moved out of their
homes to collect food.
▪ Men moved more than women to
meet friends and attend meetings
while women moved more than
men to collect water and for
medical care.
▪ Roughly quarter of both men and
women went out of their homes
for employment. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female repondents Male repondents
Are you able to get around more or less than
before Covid-19?
Less than before Same as before More than before

Assessing mobility during Covid-19 pandemic
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Buy food Meet friends Collect water Attend
meeting
Medical care Employment Sell food
In the past two weeks, have you gone out of your home to: Can still obtain
vegetables
and fruits for
your family
Male respondents Female respondents

Hours spent caring for others in the household in the last 24 hours
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Female
(n=158)
Male
(n=149)
Total
(n=307)
Female
(n=287)
Male
(n=261
Total
(n=548)
Conditional mean (n=307) Overall mean (n=548)
Hours
Respondent hours
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Female
(n=43)
Male
(n=149)
Total
(n=192
Female
(n=161)
Male
(n=256)
Total
(n=417)
Conditional mean (n=192, p***) Overall mean (n=417, p***)
Hours
Spouse hours
▪ 158 (55%) of women indicated that they
spent on average 8 hours (conditional
mean) offering care to other members of
their households.
▪ This is inline with men report about their
spouses where 149(58%) of them said
that their female spouses spent 9 hours
offering care.
▪ 261 (57%) of men indicated that they had
spent an average of 7 hours (conditional
mean) taking care of other household
members.
▪ Female respondents indicated that only
43 (26%) of their male spouses spent
some time (5 hours) offering care.

Comparing caring hours in the last 24 hours with typical day before
Covid-19
▪ More women (60%) than men (40%)
of men felt the hours they spent
offering care were more than before
Covid-19.
▪ On the other hand, more men than
women felt that the hours they spent
offering care were either the same
as or less than before Covid-19.
▪ Still, more women than men felt that
their spouses spent more time
offering care.
▪ Generally, women perceived that
more time is spent offering care by
both them and their spouses than
the pandemic
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
More than
before
Less than
before
Same as
before
More than
before
Less than
before
Same as
before
Respondent Spouse
How does the hours spent offering care
compare with a typical day before Covid-19?
Female Male

Any sickness in the household in the last 2 weeks? (Yes)
▪ Significantly (p<1%) more men (56%) than women (40%) reported that there was sickness in
their households in the past 2 weeks.
▪ The disease burden was significantly (p<1%) higher in male headed households (51% for
male headed Vs 38% for female headed)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
By respondent gender (***) By gender of the household head (***)
Female Male

Changes in food access since COVID19 affected communities
▪ Significantly more women
(71%) than men (65%)
reported that their food access
had change in some ways.
▪ Over three quarters were
unable to obtain enough food.
▪ About half ate less food.
▪ 26% female and 40% male
respondents got food from
different sources – p<1%.
▪ A quarter of them ate different
food from what they usually
eat.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
My food
access
changed
(*)
Unable to
obtain
enough
food
Eat less
food
Get food
from
different
sources
(***)
Eat
different
foods
High
prices
Female respondents Male respondents

Food insecurity experience, in the last 2 weeks,
due to lack of money or other resources:
▪ Over 50%:
o were worried they would
not have enough food, with
significantly more women
than men,
o Were unable to eat healthy
and nutritious food, with
significantly more men than
women,
o Ate less than they though
they should.
▪ 40% of both men and women
had to skip a meal while
significantly more women than
men were at some point
hungry but did not eat (p<1%).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Worried I would
not have enough
food (***)
Unable to eat
healthy and
nutritious food (*)
Ate less than I
thought I should
Had to skip a
meal
Were hungry but
did not eat (***)

Household Dietary Diversification by respondents’ gender – last 24 hours
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Grains
Dairy
Dark leafy greens and vegs
Roots and tubers (***)
Pulses (***)
Other Vit A-rich fruits and vegs (***)
Meat/poultry/fish (***)
Other vegetables (***)
Eggs (***)
Other fruits (*)
Nuts and seeds (*)
Proportion of households
▪ Significantly more men than women reported to have consumed most of the food types in
their households in the last 24 hours.
▪ Generally, the diversity of their diets is poor where they mostly rely on grains, dairy and dark
leafy green and vegetables

Household Dietary Diversity Index (HDDI) – 10 food items
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
By gender of the
respondent (***)
By gender of the
household head (***)
HDDIScore
Female Male▪ Men’s HDDI mean score was
significantly higher than that of
women – p<1%.
▪ Female headed household were
disadvantaged where they
consumed less diverse foods
compared to male headed
households – p<1%
▪ The Minimum Dietary Diversity
Score for Women (MDD-W)
showed that only about half of
the women consumed at least 5
food groups in the last 24 hours

Dietary diversity score
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of food groups consumed
Minimum Dietary Diversity Score for Women (MDD-W)
At least 5 food groups consumed in last 24 hours
MDD-W=0
53.3%
MDD-W=1
46.7%

Decision maker for respondent’s income
▪ More women than men have
sole control over their
income.
▪ Over half of men and only a
third of women said that
their income is controlled
jointly with their spouses.
▪ Only 8% of women and 2%
of men indicated their
spouses had sole control
over what they
(respondents) earn.
▪ No significant gender
differences were detected in
these decisions.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female Male
Proportionofhousehold
Respondent Respondent and spouse
spouse/partner Other people
Respondent does not earn

Decision maker for spouse’s income
▪ 50% of women and 60% of
men said that they jointly
manage their spouses’
income.
▪ Substantially more women
(40%) than men (18%) said
that their spouses solely
control their income;
▪ While more men (18%) than
women (8%) said that they
solely controlled their
spouses’ income.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female Male
Respondent and spouse Spouse/Partner
Respondent Spouse does not earn

Impact of COVID-19 on migration
▪ Migration for work by household
members was not very common
where only about a quarter
reported it.
▪ The was a balance in the
proportion of men and women
reported as migrant workers.
▪ Roughly half of the migrant
workers have returned home due
to COVID-19
▪ Just about half of those who still
have members as migrant
workers still receive remittances
from them.
▪ Three quarters of them said the
remittances are less than what
they received before the Covid-19
pandemic
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Female
respondents
Male
respondents
Overall Female
respondents
Male
respondents
Overall
Those who have not returned home
still send money home
Remittances sent are less than before
Covid-19Proportionofhouseholds
Comparison of remittances received by
households before and during COVID-19
Yes No

Impact of COVID-19 on agriculture extension services
▪ 56% male and 50% female respondents could not access their regular sources of
agriculture extension since the COVID-19 pandemic
▪ Respondents relied mostly on traditional knowledge which even during Covid-19
remained steady for women at about 67% but increased substantially for men from 60%
to 77%.
▪ Mass media (Radio, TV, Print) was the second most popular extension information source
whose availability dropped by half from 40% for women and 45% for men to 20% for both.
▪ Government extension agents, agro-dealers and field trainings were other agriculture
extension sources available to some farmers before the Covid-19 pandemic, but they
were barely accessible during the pandemic.
▪ Group meetings as a source of agricultural extension were completely unavailable to the
farmers during the pandemic while handful mentioned getting such services from
neighbours and family.
▪ About a third (35%) of both men and women felt that quality, timeliness and frequency of
extension services had worsened since the Covid-19 pandemic hit their communities.
▪ 45% of women and 60% of men felt that their farm productivity suffered due to
inaccessibility of timely and quality agricultural information during the pandemic.

Impact of COVID-19 on agriculture extension services
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Traditional
Knowledge
Mass media Government
Extension Agent
Agro-dealers Neighbour/Family Group meetings Field trainings
Agriculture extension sources: Before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
Female before Covid19 Male before Covid19 Female after Covid 19 Male after Covid19

WASH and HWISE
▪ A third of the households got their drinking water from dug wells and
boreholes and another third from springs and rivers.
▪ Only less than a fifth (17%) of the households had access to piped water
and a similar proportion relied on rainwater for drinking.
▪ Most of them (60%) fetched their drinking water from within their home
compounds while a fifth took under 30 minutes and another fifth over 30
minutes to fetch water.
▪ Nearly all households had access to a toilet/pit latrine (99%), most of them
(95%) using their own pit latrines.
▪ Only less than a quarter who reported struggling with water access during
Covid-19 pandemic with slightly, but not significantly, more women
struggling.

Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female respondent Male respondent Overall
Proportionofhouseholds Source of drinking water
Piped water Dug well/Borewell/Tube well Water from spring/river Rainwater collection Delivered water

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female respondents Male respondents Overall
How long doe it take you to collect drinking water
In own dwelling/yard Less than 30 minutes away Over than 30 minutes away

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female respondents Male respondents Overall
Toilet facility for the households
Home latrine Neighbour's latrine Flush toilet Community latrine No toilet (open air)

Household Water Insecurity Experience Scale (HWISE) – in
the past 4 weeks
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Worried that you would not
have enough water
Changed plans/skipped
activities bacause you did
not have enough water
Drank less than you
thought you should
Washed hands less than
you thought you should
Female Male

Household conflict
▪ Another confirmatory question was
added at the beginning of this module to
enquire whether respondents were in a
private space with their speaker phone
turned off.
▪ This was asked only those who at the
beginning said they were not on speaker
phone and had spouses/married (160
women, 233 men).
▪ Only those who said were not on
speaker phone and were in private
space were interviewed this section- 144
male and 223 female.
▪ This translated to 50% of women and
85% of men, or 67% of the total sample.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female
respondents
Male
Respondents
Overall
In private space with speaker phone turned off
Speaker phone turned on
Not in private space

Household conflict
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female
respondent
Male
respondent
Overall Female
respondent
Male
respondent
Overall
Had a disagreement or fought in the last
two weeks
Easily worked out everyday spousal
problems together
Disagreement and conflict resolution
Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often Don't know Refused

Household conflict
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female
respondent
Male
respondent
Overall Female
respondent
Male
respondent
Overall
Been afraid of spouse in the last 2 weeks Been afraid of other family member in last two
weeks
Been afraid of spouse or another family member
Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often Don't know Refused

Conclusions
▪ Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting lockdown and restrictions have had
negative impact on several aspects of life among rural farmers:
o There has been loss of income,
o Mobility has been hampered,
o Engagement in productive work has been reduced,
o Access to food and extension services has been affected,
o Some immigrant workers have returned home, and remittances have reduced
substantially.
▪ Households are coping by:
o Spending savings, borrowing, selling family assets and engaging in menial
jobs,
o Consuming different kind of foods, getting food from different sources,
consuming less,
o Trying some new sources of agriculture extension and information.

Impact of COVID-19 on the welfare of rural households in Kenya (round 1)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Impact of COVID-19 on the welfare of rural households in Kenya (round 1)

Similar to Impact of COVID-19 on the welfare of rural households in Kenya (round 1) (20)

More from International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

More from International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Impact of COVID-19 on the welfare of rural households in Kenya (round 1)