1. BRACE IMPACT EVALUATION: PHASE I BASELINE RESULTS Findings from Warrap and Northern Bahr el Ghazal States Juba, 30 May 2013

2. S AMPLE Sample by household level food insecurity and wealth group HOUSEHOLDSVery poorPoorMiddle/Better-offTOTAL Severely food insecure HH 12062361531595 Non-FFA 64312782852 FFA 56310971743 Moderately food insecure HH 13805214882389 Non-FFA 6952482141157 FFA 6852732741232 Food secure HH 2364517298 Non-FFA 125287160 FFA 1111710138 TOTAL 2822 (66%)802 (19%)658 (15%)4282

3. FOOD SECURITY

4. F OOD INSECURITY This box plot above demonstrates significant variation within wealth groups in livelihood spending – the indicator that is used here to classify households according to wealth. Almost 10% of households reported 0 expenditure on livelihoods over the most recent 12 months. There was significant variation in expenditure on livelihood inputs when comparing Northern Bahr el Ghazal and Warrap states – with households in Northern Bahr el Ghazal spending on average 40 SSP less. GFD households spent on average 34 SSP less on livelihoods inputs than other households.

5. F OOD SECURITY

6. Those who had received nothing were most likely to be food insecure (48%) Followed by all other households (42%) GFD rations range from 535 – 615 grams per person per day FFA ration is limited to 385 grams Households that received only GFD may have received several GFD rations, while households that switched to FFA would have started with GFD rations before switching to FFA ration sizes.

7. F OOD SECURITY FFA participation has a significant positive effect on food security when comparing households within the same wealth groups. The strongest effect was seen amongst Poor households where 31% of FFA households were food insecure, compared to 38% of non-FFA households. In the Middle/Better-off group, 23% of FFA households were food insecure compared to 29% of non-FFA households. The smallest effect was seen in the Very Poor group, where 49% of FFA households were food insecure, compared to 53% of non-FFA households. Receipt of GFD had no significant effect on food security when comparing households within the same wealth group. GFD did not have significant effect when controlling for wealth groups.

8. DEMOGRAPHICS

10. Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients tSig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B BStd. ErrorBetaLower Bound Upper Bound 1 (Constant) 1.245.04428.293.0001.1591.331 Poor.173.024.1087.047.000.125.221 Middle_Better_off.287.027.16610.778.000.235.339 Percentage_Dependents.000.001-.003-.213.831-.001.001 Total_HH_Members.022.003.1016.668.000.016.028 a. Dependent Variable: Food security category Proportion of dependents has no significant effect on food insecurity category, when holding wealth group constant A high proportion of household members across all groups were aged less than 15 years (53%) with children under 5 accounting for 21% of household members. Lack of effect on food security could be due to household members categorised as dependents (aged less than 15 or more than 50) in fact contribute both formal and informal labour to the household that improves food security Variation in food security was found when only considering children aged less than five years of age as dependents – food secure households were found to contain on average fewer (20.2%) children under five than moderately (21.3%) and severely (22.5%) food insecure households.

11. D EMOGRAPHICS

12. EDUCATION

13. Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients tSig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B BStd. ErrorBetaLower Bound Upper Bound 1(Constant)1.795.16211.075.0001.4782.113 Poor1.453.344.0654.219.000.7782.129 Middle_Better_off2.119.373.0885.684.0001.3882.849 a. Dependent Variable: Perc_Com_Edu

14. E DUCATION Coefficients a ModelUnstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients tSig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B BStd. ErrorBetaLower BoundUpper Bound 1 (Constant) 11.0981.1639.545.0008.81913.378 Poor 6.490 2.465.0412.633.0081.65811.322 Middle_Better_off 9.099 2.663.0543.417.0013.87914.320 a. Dependent Variable: EXP_Edu_PC

15. HEALTH, WATER AND SANITATION

16. H EALTH Child sickness was most prevalent amongst children aged less than 2, with malaria being the most frequently reported symptoms. 13% of children aged less than 5 in Northern Bahr el Ghazal has symptoms of malaria, compared to 46% of those aged less than 2. 5% of children aged less than 5 in Northern Bahr el Ghazal had diarrhea, compared to 34% of those aged less than 2.

17. F OOD INSECURITY Members in households that were classified as severely food insecure were overall less likely to obtain treatment when sick 77% were treated compared to 89% in moderately food insecure households and 93% in food secure households. There was no significant difference in proportion of sick household members that were treated when comparing non-FFA and FFA household and States. Very Poor households were most likely to contain household members that had fallen ill over the most recent two weeks preceding the survey (36% of households), compared to Poor (24%) and Middle/Better- off (19%).

18. M EDICAL

19. F OOD INSECURITY Food consumption scores were not associated with a reduction in proportion of children suffering from illness. Instead households with better scores seemed to have a higher proportion of children that had fallen ill. Counter-intuitive? What do households that have high levels of food consumption and a high proportion of sick children have in common? The relationship with wealth groups was less counter-intuitive, diarrhoea incidence was higher amongst the Very Poor and Poor households (5%) than Middle/Better-off households (4%).

20. S ANITATION Amongst those using toilet facilities, food secure households were more likely to use private pit latrines. The overwhelming majority reported using no toilet facility. Use of toilet facilities was slightly higher amongst food secure households (8%) compared to moderately food insecure (5%) and severely food insecure (5%) households. Amongst those who used a toilet facility, communal pit latrines were most often used by severely food insecure households (42%), while moderately food insecure and food secure households most often used pit latrines in their compound (38% and 52% respectively). Type of toilet facility used was not associated with child sickness

21. W ATER Households with longer distances to the nearest water source were more likely to be food insecure. Amongst severely food insecure households, 57% lived more than 30 minutes away from their main drinking water source, compared to 48% of moderately food insecure and 46% of food secure households. Type of drinking water source and the time taken to reach the source were not associated with child sickness. The majority of households were found to use a borehole with pump (76%), followed by 11% that used a protected dug well and 9% that used a pond, river or stream.

22. FOOD CONSUMPTION, FOOD ACCESS AND INCOME SOURCES

23. F OOD CONSUMPTION

24. F OOD A CCESS

25. I NCOME SOURCES

28. Women were found to conduct most of the sale of alcohol (80%) and sale of natural resources (61%). – the two most common income sources during the dry season Men dominated in proportion of salaried work (83%); casual construction labour (65%); and livestock sales (63%). The ratio of female to male contribution to income was 1.45:1 – hence for every two men, three women were contributing an income. Significant variation in ratio was seen when comparing wealth groups – the most even ratio was found in Poor households (1.33:1), followed by Middle/better-off households (1.43:1) and Very Poor households (1.54:1)

29. I NCOME SOURCES Households relying on begging and borrowing used a high or medium level of coping strategies in 92% and 77% of cases respectively. The corresponding proportion was lowest amongst households relying on salaried work (13%) or sale of crops (11%).

30. EXPENDITURE

31. Coefficients a ModelUnstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients tSig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B BStd. ErrorBetaLower BoundUpper Bound 1 (Constant) 140.6194.44931.605.000131.897149.342 Sale of crops (good) -41.145 13.301-.048-3.093.002-67.221-15.068 Sale of domestic animal products (good) 59.627 26.121.0352.283.0228.417110.837 Sale of wild foods (medium) 28.052 13.720.0322.045.0411.15554.949 Sale of alcohol (medium) 56.255 8.427.1076.675.00039.73372.777 Other trading/business (good) 52.913 10.071.0835.254.00033.17072.657 Salaried work (good) 44.067 12.966.0533.399.00118.64769.487 Aid (poor) 105.328 16.473.0986.394.00073.031137.624 Borrowing (poor) 204.230 36.084.0855.660.000133.487274.973 Begging (poor) 119.293 57.726.0312.067.0396.121232.465 a. Dependent Variable: Total_EXP_PC

32. E XPENDITURE Coefficients a ModelUnstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients tSig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B BStd. ErrorBetaLower BoundUpper Bound 1 (Constant) 59.0971.27246.474.00056.60461.590 Sale of crops -28.483 3.827-.116-7.443.000-35.986-20.981 Sale of alcohol 14.349 2.421.0965.927.0009.60319.096 Other trading/business 12.809 2.892.0704.429.0007.13918.479 Casual labour - agriculture -11.458 3.487-.052-3.286.001-18.294-4.621 Salaried work 9.685 3.697.0412.620.0092.43816.933 Aid 23.215 4.722.0764.917.00013.95832.472 a. Dependent Variable: EXP_Food_PC  Households relying on sale of crops spent the least on average per capita in general, and also on food. Those selling crops spent on average 29 SSP less on foods compared to income sources not included in the model Those engaging in casual agricultural labour during the dry season spent 11 SSP less Alcohol sellers spent on average 14 SSP more Trade or business spent on average 13 SSP more And finally, those relying on aid spent the most – 23 SSP on average more than other households

33. E XPENDITURE

34. Types of livelihood expenditure differed depending on wealth group. Middle/Better-off households spent a vast majority of their input on livestock purchases, with the average being higher in Northern Bahr el Ghazal (892.9SSP) than Warrap State (778.1) for the wealthiest group. The Poor wealth group spent the largest share on seeds, again with a higher average in Northern Bahr el Ghazal (128.0SSP) than Warrap State (87.2SSP). The Very Poor were most likely to have spent the largest share on tools, here with a higher average in Warrap (35.6 SSP) compared to Northern Bahr el Ghazal (27.7 SSP).

35. FOOD SOURCES

36. Households relied in the majority of cases on markets for their food purchases – for example, on average 55% of all cereals were bought at the market. The corresponding FSMS average was 56%. Own production still accounted for a significant proportion of food sourcing in February and March, providing on average 36% of cereals. The corresponding FSMS average was 28%. Food aid was the third most commonly reported food source, accounting for 5% of all foods.

37. F OOD SOURCES Significant variation between States for some foods that were more likely to be purchased in the market in Northern Bahr el Ghazal: sorghum, maize, vegetables, eggs, fish, milk and sugar

38. F OOD SOURCES

40. T HANK YOU Thank you for your attention! For any comments, questions or suggestions – please feel free to get in touch: elisabeth.vikman@acted.org