This document discusses a study that examines the ability of different household food insecurity measures to capture vulnerability and resilience. It presents results from a cash transfer program in Zimbabwe. The study finds that while food insecurity scores improved from 2013 to 2014 for both treatment and comparison groups, the improvement was greater for the treatment group that received cash transfers. This suggests cash transfers helped increase food security and resilience. The study also finds that different food insecurity measures like expenditures, diet diversity scores, and experience-based scales provide varying but complementary perspectives on household food security.

1. Ability
of
Household
Food
Insecurity
Measures
to
Capture
Vulnerability
and
Resilience:
Evidence
from
a
Cash
Transfer
Program
in
Zimbabwe
Garima
Bhallaa
(gbhalla@live.unc.edu),
Sudhanshu
Handaab,
Gustavo
Angelesc,
David
Seidenfeldd
November
12,
2015
APPAM
Fall
Conference
aDepartment
of
Public
Policy,
University
of
North
Carolina,
Chapel
Hill,
USA
bUNICEF
Office
of
Research-­‐InnocenQ,
Piazza
SS.
Annunziata
12,
50122
Florence,
Italy
cDepartment
of
Maternal
&
Child
Health,
UNC
Gillings
School
of
Global
Public
Health,
Chapel
Hill,
USA
dAmerican
InsQtutes
for
Research,
Washington,
DC,
USA

2. Right
to
Food
is
a
Fundamental
Human
Right
• Recognized
in
ArQcle
25
of
the
Universal
DeclaraQon
on
Human
Rights
• Achieving
food
security
and
improved
nutriQon
recognized
as
the
second
of
17
proposed
Sustainable
Development
Goals
of
the
2030
Agenda
• 795
million
people
are
sQll
undernourished
globally
Prevalence
rate
in
sub-­‐Saharan
Africa:
23.2
percent
Prevalence
rate
in
Zimbabwe:
33.4
percent
Source:
FAO,
IFAD
&
WFP,
2015
• How
to
close
this
gap?
2

3. BACKGROUND
&
MOTIVATION
Complex
mulQ-­‐dimensional
construct
Four
main
pillars:
Availability
of
food,
Access
to
food,
UQlizaQon
of
food,
Stability
No
single
perfect
indicator
that
captures
all
dimensions
Shi^
in
focus
from
objecQve
to
experienQal
measures
RecogniQon
of
experienQal
aspect
of
the
disinvestment
process
that
leads
to
the
condiQon
of
being
hungry.
Some
households
can
be
food
insecure,
and
yet
not
immediately
be
experiencing
hunger.
Food
Security
as
a
Concept
Measuring
Food
Insecurity
The
Big
QuesCons
What
are
the
differences
between
these
measures,
and
the
policy
implicaQons
of
these
differences?
To
what
extent
do
the
different
food
insecurity
measures
effecQvely
capture
household
vulnerability
and
resilience?

4. FOOD
INSECURITY
MEASURES
Value
of
all
food
expenditure
including
value
of
gi^s
and
own
producQon
consumed
divided
by
family
size
Measures
the
number
of
different
food
groups
consumed
over
a
given
reference
period
with
a
score
ranging
from
0
to
12.
12
food
groups
recommended
for
inclusion
(Swindale
&
Bilinsky,
2006)
Per
capita
Food
Expenditure
Diet
Diversity
Score
(DDS)
Household
Food
Insecurity
Scale
(HFIAS)
Widely
used
experienQal
indicator,
developed
by
USAID
9-­‐item
scale,
where
households
rate
their
experience
from
‘Rarely’
to
‘O^en’,
using
reference
period
of
past
four
weeks
Measures
three
domains:
anxiety
over
food
supply,
followed
by
decrease
in
quality
of
food,
and
then
decrease
in
quanQty
of
food
.

5. Baseline
Equivalence
(1/2)
Mean
Baseline
CharacterisCcs
of
Sample
Households
(HH)
Total
Eligible
Treatment
Comparison
Household
Demographics
Household
Size
4.77
4.76
4.78
Children
under
5
0.69
0.68
0.70
Children
6
-­‐
17
2.06
2.09
2.02
Adults
18
-­‐
59
1.13
1.13
1.13
Elderly
(>60)
0.87
0.85
0.92
%
of
HH
that
have
disabled
members
25%
24%
27%
%
of
HH
with
chronically
ill
members
37%
35%
39%
%
of
HH
that
have
elderly
members
67%
65%
69%
Main
Respondent
CharacterisCcs
Female
68%
70%
65%
Age
57.44
56.86
58.58
Widowed
38%
38%
39%
Divorced/Separated
9%
10%
8%
Main
resp.
has
schooling
56%
53%
62%
Main
resp.
currently
amends
school
2%
2%
1%
Highest
grade
of
main
resp.
3.24
3.12
3.47
5

6. Baseline
Equivalence
(2/2)
Mean
Baseline
CharacterisCcs
of
Sample
Households
(HH)
Total
Eligible
Treatment
Comparison
Household
Poverty
Indicators
Per
capita
Expenditure
33.14
32.50
34.38
Per
capita
Food
Expenditure
20.97
20.73
21.44
%
of
HH
living
below
poverty
line
92%
93%
91%
%
of
HH
living
below
food
poverty
line
70%
70%
68%
%
of
HH
that
are
labor
constrained
84%
83%
85%
%
of
HH
that
suffered
a
shock
87%
88%
85%
N
3063
2029
1034
6

7. Study
Sample
Size:
No
DifferenQal
AmriQon
Study
Sample
Size
Comparison
Treatment
Total
2013
1,034
2,029
3,063
2014
882
1,748
2,630
Total
1,916
3,777
5,693
Response
Rates
85.3
86.2
85.9
7

8. Mean
of
Food
Insecurity
Indicators
8
Mean of Food Insecurity Indicators
Year2013 Year2104
Overall Household Food Insecurity Score 13.98 11.02
P.c. Food Expenditure per month 20.02 18.93
Diet Diversity Score 5.82 6.76
Treatment
Group Household Food Insecurity Score 14.20 10.93
P.c. Food Expenditure per month 19.56 18.68
Diet Diversity Score 5.69 6.85
Comparison
Group Household Food Insecurity Score 13.54 11.21
P.c. Food Expenditure per month 20.90 19.43
Diet Diversity Score 6.06 6.58
!

9. Methodology
• Pooled
sample
difference-­‐in-­‐difference
model:
where
Yhjt
is
the
food
insecurity
outcome
of
interest
for
household
h
from
province
j
at
Qme
t
(2014,
12
months)
β8
represents
the
impact
esQmator,
or
the
effect
of
being
a
cash
transfer
beneficiary
• Standard
errors
clustered
at
the
ward
level
Baseline
values
used
for
main
respondent
characterisQcs
and
household
demographics
Prices
maintained
as
exogenous
and
allowed
to
vary
by
Qme
period
• IdenQfying
assumpQon:
‘parallel
trends’
9
Part
1
!!!" !=!β! + β!Post! + β!Transfer! + β!Transfer ∗ Post!!
+ β!HHDemographics! + β!HHMainResp! + β!Province! + β!Prices!"
+ β!Week! + ε!!"!!

10. Difference-­‐in-­‐Differences
Pooled
Cross-­‐secQon
Model
Impact
EsCmates
of
the
Cash
Transfer
on
Food
Security
Measures
Using
Full
Panel
Sample
HHld
Size
<=4
Transfer
is
>=
20%
of
p.c.
total
exp.
Impact
EsQmate
Baseline
Avg
of
all
Hhlds
Impact
EsQmate
Baseline
Avg
of
all
Hhlds
Impact
EsQmate
Baseline
Avg
of
all
Hhlds
P.c.
Total
Expenditure
per
month
3.25**
31.54
6.36**
43.11
3.23**
20.27
(2.53)
(2.27)
(2.33)
P.c.
Food
Expenditure
per
month
2.04*
19.34
4.52
26.6
2.15*
11.58
(1.75)
(1.66)
(1.79)
Diet
Diversity
Score
0.76***
5.79
0.80***
5.44
0.88***
4.74
(3.77)
(3.08)
(3.57)
HFIA
Score
-­‐1.28**
13.99
-­‐1.0279
14.14
-­‐1.1543*
14.99
(-­‐2.29)
(-­‐1.49)
(-­‐1.70)
Diet
Diversity
Score
0.7549***
5.79
0.8002***
5.44
0.8768***
4.74
(3.77)
(3.08)
(3.57)
5231
2348
2730
10
Part
1
***p<0.01,
**p<0.05,
*p<0.1
Robust
t-­‐staQsQcs
clustered
at
the
district-­‐ward
level
in
parentheses
Notes:
EsQmaQons
use
difference-­‐in-­‐difference
modeling
among
panel
households.
All
esQmaQons
control
for
week
of
interview,
baseline
household
size,
main
respondent's
age,
educaQon
and
marital
status,
districts,
household
demographic
composiQon,
and
a
vector
of
cluster
level
prices

11. Household-­‐level
Fixed
Effects
Impact
EsCmates
of
the
Cash
Transfer
on
Food
Insecurity
Measures
Fixed
Effects
Model
Using
Full
Panel
HHld
Size
<=4
Transfer
is
>=
20%
of
p.c.
total
exp.
Restricted
Sample
(Main
Resp
stays
the
same)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
P.c.
Total
Expenditure
per
month
3.46**
7.02**
2.15
2.84
(2.43)
(2.29)
(1.63)
(1.40)
P.c.
Food
Expenditure
per
month
1.98
4.59
1.03
1.34
(1.55)
(1.65)
(0.94)
(0.76)
Diet
Diversity
Score
0.68***
0.83***
0.68***
0.64***
(3.71)
(3.35)
(3.15)
(2.86)
HFIA
Score
-­‐1.24*
-­‐1.36*
-­‐0.77
-­‐1.74**
(-­‐1.93)
(-­‐1.93)
(-­‐1.11)
(-­‐2.53)
5231
2348
2730
3991
11
Part
1
***p<0.01,
**p<0.05,
*p<0.1
Robust
t-­‐staQsQcs
clustered
at
the
district-­‐ward
level
in
parentheses
Notes:
EsQmaQons
control
for
week
of
interview,
and
a
vector
of
cluster
level
prices

12. Household
Diet
Diversity
Impact
EsCmates
on
Household
Diet
Diversity
Impact
EsCmate
Baseline
Mean
Household
Diet
Diversity
Score
0.7549***
5.793
Cereals
-­‐0.0014
100%
Roots
&
Tubers
0.0349
11%
Vegetables
0.0017
99%
Fruits
0.1224**
31%
Meats
0.0064
34%
Eggs
-­‐0.0374*
6%
Fish
0.0122
23%
Pulses
&
Legumes
0.1609***
53%
Dairy
0.1219***
27%
Fats
0.1443***
59%
Sweets
0.1294***
46%
Misc.
(Condiments
&
Beverages)
0.0596***
91%
Total
0.0817
0.058
No.
Of
ObservaCons
=
5231
12
Part
1
***p<0.01,
**p<0.05,
*p<0.1
Robust
t-­‐staQsQcs
clustered
at
the
district-­‐ward
level
in
parentheses
Notes:
EsQmaQons
use
difference-­‐in-­‐difference
modeling
among
panel
households.
All
esQmaQons
control
for
week
of
interview,
baseline
household
size,
main
respondent's
age,
educaQon
and
marital
status,
districts,
household
demographic
composiQon,
and
a
vector
of
cluster
level
prices

13. Own-­‐ProducQon/Purchases/Gi^s
Impact
EsCmates
on
Household
Food
Expenditure,
Disaggregated
by
Source
(Log
of
USD)
Since
these
are
log,
they
provide
%
changes
due
to
cash
transfer
Total
Own
Purchases
Gi^s
Cereals
-­‐0.0097
-­‐0.0196
0.1825**
-­‐0.2061**
Roots
&
Tubers
0.0840
0.0382
0.0444
0.0055
Vegetables
-­‐0.1048
-­‐0.1383
0.2054**
-­‐0.0938
Fruits
0.2519**
0.2357**
0.0587**
-­‐0.0274
Meats
0.0542
0.0027
0.0814
-­‐0.0700
Eggs
-­‐0.0405
-­‐0.0101
-­‐0.0191
-­‐0.0111*
Fish
0.0126
-­‐0.0276
0.0363
0.0144
Pulses
&
Legumes
0.3984***
0.3224***
0.0173
0.1013
Dairy
0.2211**
0.1206*
0.0362
0.0519
Fats
0.3194***
0.0539
0.3096***
-­‐0.0310
Sweets
0.2044***
0.0070
0.2729***
-­‐0.0724**
Misc.
(Condiments
&
Beverages)
0.1099
0.0232
0.1955***
-­‐0.0950**
Total
0.0817
0.058
0.3498***
-­‐0.2396**
No.
Of
ObservaQons
=
5231
13
Part
1
***p<0.01,
**p<0.05,
*p<0.1
Robust
t-­‐staQsQcs
clustered
at
the
district-­‐ward
level
in
parentheses
Notes:
EsQmaQons
use
difference-­‐in-­‐difference
modeling
among
panel
households.
All
esQmaQons
control
for
week
of
interview,
baseline
household
size,
main
respondent's
age,
educaQon
and
marital
status,
districts,
household
demographic
composiQon,
and
a
vector
of
cluster
level
prices

14. 14
Own-­‐
ProducQo
n,
56%
Purchases,
23%
Gi^s,
21%
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Cereals
Roots
&
Tubers
Vegetables
Fruits
Meats
Eggs
Fish
Pulses
&
Legumes
Dairy
Fats
Sweets
Misc.
Part
1
Baseline
Values
of
Food
Expenditure

15. Methodology
Unit
of
Analysis
=
Household
Hypothesis
:
HFIAS
informs
us
not
just
about
a
household’s
present
food
status,
but
also
about
its
vulnerability
to
future
food
poverty,
the
likelihood
of
its
falling
into
food-­‐poor
status
at
a
future
point
in
Qme
where
Yhj
is
the
food
insecurity
of
household
‘h’
in
ward
‘j’
as
measured
by
HFIAS
score,
and
Log
of
per
capita
household
food
expenditure
15
Part
2
Y!" !=!β! +!β!HHDemographics! + β!HHMainResp! + β!Distance! + β!PA! + β!HA!
+ β!Livelihood! + β!LC! + β!Support! !+ β!Loan! + β!"Shocks!
+ β!!Province! + ε!"!

16. EsCmates
of
socioeconomic
characterisCcs
of
HH
on
HFIA
and
Per
Capita
Food
Expenditure
HFIAS
Score
Log
p.c.food
exp
Household
Size
(log)
-­‐0.4838
-­‐1.4550***
ProducCve
Assets
Score
-­‐0.4918***
0.0698***
Household
AmeniCes
Score
-­‐0.3877***
0.0457***
#
of
life
stock
type
0.1304
0.0380***
Any
income
from
wage
labor?
(Yes=1)
-­‐1.3552***
0.1936***
Any
income
from
maricho
labor?
(Yes=1)
0.9558***
0.0343
Planted
crops
last
rainy
season?
(Yes=1)
-­‐1.8166***
0.0094*
Labor
Constrained
(Yes
=
1)
1.2691***
0.0263
Aid
received
(in
USD)
0.0002
0.0002*
Monthly
remijances
low
(<$25/month)
-­‐1.8561***
-­‐0.2195***
Has
loan
outstanding
(Yes
=
1)
0.5114
0.0581
Suffered
from
a
shock?
(Yes
=
1)
2.5149***
-­‐0.300
ObservaCons
3022
3022
Adj.
R-­‐Squared
0.1362
0.4669
***p<0.01,
**p<0.05,
*p<0.1
Other
controls
used
were
household
demographics;
main
respondent
main
characterisQcs;
Distance
to
food
market,
input
market
and
water
source;
province
dummies
16
Part
2
Uncertainty
explains
variaQon
in
only
HFIAS
score,
not
expenditure

17. Zimbabwe
Seasonal
Calendar
17
Source:
Famine
Early
Warning
Systems
Network
Part
3

18. Food
Insecurity
Score
by
Week
18
12.51313.514
lowessHFIA_scaleweek
April21-28 May1-7 May14-21 May28-31 June7-14
week
Food Insecurity Score by Week
Part
3

19. Fully-­‐Interacted
Model
Results
from
Fully
Interacted
Model
Comparing
Pre/IniCal
Harvest
vs.
Peak
Harvest
HFIAS
Score
Log
p.c.food
exp
Pre/IniCal
Harvest
Dummy
-­‐1.9617
-­‐0.2718
ProducCve
Assets
Score
-­‐0.5599***
0.0664***
*Pre/IniCal
Harvest
0.3459*
-­‐0.0111
Any
income
from
wage
labor?
(Yes=1)
-­‐0.9932
0.2182**
*Pre/IniCal
Harvest
-­‐1.6729**
-­‐0.0053
Any
income
from
maricho
labor?
(Yes=1)
0.6316
0.0964**
*Pre/IniCal
Harvest
0.8838
-­‐0.0966*
Planted
crops
last
rainy
season
(Yes=1)
-­‐1.7274**
-­‐0.0836
*Pre/IniCal
Harvest
0.3062
0.1461*
Labor
Constrained
(Yes=1)
0.1908
0.0546
*Pre/IniCal
Harvest
1.9299**
0.0281
Monthly
remijances
low
(<
$25/month)
1.1810*
-­‐0.1764**
*Pre/IniCal
Harvest
1.8227*
-­‐0.0689
Suffered
from
a
shock?
(Yes=1)
2.2203***
-­‐0.0063
*Pre/IniCal
Harvest
0.0301
-­‐0.1289**
ObservaCons
2114
2114
Adjusted
R-­‐squared
0.1391
0.4595
***p<0.01,
**p<0.05,
*p<0.1
Only significant interaction terms are shown in this table
19
Part
2

20. The
Missing
GeneraQon
20
0.01.02.03.04.05
Density
0 20 40 60 80 100
Age in Years of Household Members
Age Distribution of Household Members

21. Conclusions
• Aggregate
expenditure
does
not
reveal
important
household
behavior.
HSCT
has
posiQvely
impacted
the
resilience
of
beneficiaries.
Households:
– approach
the
market
to
diversify
its
food
basket;
– diversify
its
own-­‐producQon
of
other
foodstuffs,
and
– rely
less
on
gi^s
as
a
source
of
food
• Some
factors,
which
directly
reflect
the
household’s
vulnerability,
such
as
exposure
to
shocks,
labor-­‐constrained
status,
and
income
from
casual
labor,
are
significant
in
explaining
variaQon
only
in
the
HFIAS
score,
but
not
food
expenditure.
– Provides
evidence
that
a
consumpQon-­‐based
measure,
such
as
household
food
expenditure,
may
not
fully
capture
household
vulnerability
• NegaQve
impact
of
being
labor
constrained
is
accentuated
during
the
lean
phase.
Evidence
supports
the
program
feature
of
the
HSCT
wherein
eligibility
of
a
household
to
become
a
beneficiary
of
the
cash
transfer
is
determined
not
just
due
to
food
poverty
but
also
due
to
its
labor
constrained
status
21