Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis Assessment 2008
Uganda, 2008
Get Microdata
Reference ID
UGA_2008_CFSVA_v01_M
Producer(s)
World Food Programme,
Created on
Feb 19, 2014
Last modified
Mar 29, 2019
Page views
28891
Downloads
1992
Identification
Survey ID Number
UGA_2008_CFSVA_v01_M
Title
Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis Assessment 2008
Country
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Uganda | UGA |
Study type
Comprehensive Food Security & Vulnerability Analysis [hh/cfsva]
Series Information
The CFSVA process generates a document that describes the food security status of various segments of a population over various parts of a country or region, analyses the underlying causes of vulnerability, and recommends appropriate interventions to deal with the problems. CFSVAs are undertaken in all crisis-prone food-insecure countries. The shelf life of CFSVAs is determined by the indicators being collected and reported. In most situations, CFSVA findings are valid for three to five years, unless there are drastic food security changes in the meantime.This is the second CFSVA conducted in Uganda. The first CFSVA took place in 2005.
Abstract
In Uganda, food and nutrition security remains high on the country’s development agenda. The Government has recently produced several policy frameworks and strategies which acknowledges this importance, such as the forthcoming National Development Plan (2009-2014). The Government has also made a commitment to monitor the country’s progress against the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) - the first of which relates to eradicating extreme hunger and poverty.
In 2005, WFP conducted a Comprehensive Food Security & Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) in Uganda. In 2008, it was decided to conduct a similar assessment in order to update critical data on food and nutrition, enable more focused programme responses, and improve inter-agency coordination and targeting. The study aimed at addressing the following five questions:
1. How many people are food insecure or vulnerable?
2. Who are the food insecure or vulnerable people?
3. Where do the food insecure and vulnerable people live?
4. What are the underlying causes and threats to food security and nutrition?
5. What are the implications for food security interventions?
Objectives
Through in-depth data collection and analysis, the CFSVA provides humanitarian agencies with information on:
- The areas and population groups that are the most food insecure and malnourished, including: how many they are; how they are distributed in the country; why they are food and nutritionally insecure; how food or other assistance can make a difference in reducing hunger and supporting their livelihoods; and if, possible targeting criteria for the different socio-economic groups;
- An understanding of changes in the vulnerability of these populations over time;
- An overview of how well markets function and are integrated; and,
- Future risks for food security for incorporation in contingency plans (eg. from socioeconomic, natural, political or other shocks).
In 2005, WFP conducted a Comprehensive Food Security & Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) in Uganda. In 2008, it was decided to conduct a similar assessment in order to update critical data on food and nutrition, enable more focused programme responses, and improve inter-agency coordination and targeting. The study aimed at addressing the following five questions:
1. How many people are food insecure or vulnerable?
2. Who are the food insecure or vulnerable people?
3. Where do the food insecure and vulnerable people live?
4. What are the underlying causes and threats to food security and nutrition?
5. What are the implications for food security interventions?
Objectives
Through in-depth data collection and analysis, the CFSVA provides humanitarian agencies with information on:
- The areas and population groups that are the most food insecure and malnourished, including: how many they are; how they are distributed in the country; why they are food and nutritionally insecure; how food or other assistance can make a difference in reducing hunger and supporting their livelihoods; and if, possible targeting criteria for the different socio-economic groups;
- An understanding of changes in the vulnerability of these populations over time;
- An overview of how well markets function and are integrated; and,
- Future risks for food security for incorporation in contingency plans (eg. from socioeconomic, natural, political or other shocks).
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Unit of Analysis
- Household
- Individual
- Community
- Key market
- Individual
- Community
- Key market
Version
Version Date
2009-04-01
Scope
Notes
The scope of the CFSVA includes:
HOUSEHOLD: Demographics, education, housing, labour migration, agriculture and production, livestock, livelihoods, expenditure, market access, food consumption, shocks and coping, water and sanitation and assistance
COMMUNITY: Crop production, livestock and pasture, health, access to social services and economic infrastructure, access to markets
MARKETS AND TRADERS: Market prices and availability, key commodities and volumes traded, transaction costs, competition, household market access, and expansion capacity
HOUSEHOLD: Demographics, education, housing, labour migration, agriculture and production, livestock, livelihoods, expenditure, market access, food consumption, shocks and coping, water and sanitation and assistance
COMMUNITY: Crop production, livestock and pasture, health, access to social services and economic infrastructure, access to markets
MARKETS AND TRADERS: Market prices and availability, key commodities and volumes traded, transaction costs, competition, household market access, and expansion capacity
Topics
| Topic | Vocabulary | URI |
|---|---|---|
| consumption/consumer behaviour [1.1] | CESSDA | Link |
| economic conditions and indicators [1.2] | CESSDA | Link |
| income, property and investment/saving [1.5] | CESSDA | Link |
| rural economics [1.6] | CESSDA | Link |
| agricultural, forestry and rural industry [2.1] | CESSDA | Link |
| employment [3.1] | CESSDA | Link |
| basic skills education [6.1] | CESSDA | Link |
| compulsory and pre-school education [6.2] | CESSDA | Link |
| general health [8.4] | CESSDA | Link |
| nutrition [8.7] | CESSDA | Link |
| housing [10.1] | CESSDA | Link |
| land use and planning [10.2] | CESSDA | Link |
| children [12.1] | CESSDA | Link |
| migration [14.3] | CESSDA | Link |
| TRADE, INDUSTRY AND MARKETS [2] | CESSDA | Link |
Coverage
Geographic Coverage
National coverage
Universe
The survey covered household througout Uganda and specifically children under the age of five as well as mothers. Another component specifically addressed traders to gather data on markets.
Producers and sponsors
Primary investigators
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| World Food Programme | United Nations |
Producers
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| Action Contre la Faim | Partner |
| Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations | Partner |
| Famine Early Warning Systems Network | Partner |
| Ugandan Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries | Partner |
| Ugandan Ministry of Health | Partner |
| Norwegian Refugee Council | Partner |
| Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs | Partner |
| Office of the Prime Minister, Uganda | Partner |
| Oxfam International | Partner |
| Save the Children | Partner |
| Uganda Bureau of Statistics | Partner |
| United Nations Children’s Fund | Partner |
| World Vision | Partner |
Funding Agency/Sponsor
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation | Financial Support |
Sampling
Sampling Procedure
Sampling plan
Based on an extensive discussion and review of existing stratification, the country has been divided into 23 strata. Two extra strata were proposed being: Refugees within West Nile; and Southwest strata. Hence a total of 25 strata were used for the survey (see Map 2 in the final CFSVA report). During the analysis the stratification of the region is used in order to simplify the presentation of data. This is shown in Map 3 of the final CFSVA report.
Sample design
A two-stage sample design was adopted. The first stage was the selection of enumeration areas (EAs) from each of the 25 strata using Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) sampling. The second stage was the selection of the households, which were the Ultimate Sampling Units (USUs). The frame from which the EAs were sampled was the one developed during the 2002 Population and Housing Census and later updated to include the current 80 districts. In each EA, households were selected either from a list compiled during the actual data collection, or from a list made available by the UBOS National Service Delivery Survey in mid-2008 (just before the CFSVA was undertaken).
Sample size determination
It was established that based on calculated standard errors, a design effect of 2 and, in order to have a coefficient of variation (CV) of less than 15%, 767 EAs needed to be sampled. Altogether this sampled number of EAs would be sufficient to generate estimates, including at the stratum level. The number of EAs per stratum were computed using a power allocation of 0.3 (see Annex 12.1 of the final CFSVA report for more details).
Selection Procedure of households
Existing listings of all households in each EA were the basis for the selection of households. The households were selected using Simple Random Sampling (SRS) from household lists in each EA. In every EA, 34 households were sampled, 30 of which were surveyed for health and nutrition and 10 for food security. For the latter, every third sampled household was included. Where listings were not available, the team generated a listing with the local leaders before proceeding.
Based on an extensive discussion and review of existing stratification, the country has been divided into 23 strata. Two extra strata were proposed being: Refugees within West Nile; and Southwest strata. Hence a total of 25 strata were used for the survey (see Map 2 in the final CFSVA report). During the analysis the stratification of the region is used in order to simplify the presentation of data. This is shown in Map 3 of the final CFSVA report.
Sample design
A two-stage sample design was adopted. The first stage was the selection of enumeration areas (EAs) from each of the 25 strata using Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) sampling. The second stage was the selection of the households, which were the Ultimate Sampling Units (USUs). The frame from which the EAs were sampled was the one developed during the 2002 Population and Housing Census and later updated to include the current 80 districts. In each EA, households were selected either from a list compiled during the actual data collection, or from a list made available by the UBOS National Service Delivery Survey in mid-2008 (just before the CFSVA was undertaken).
Sample size determination
It was established that based on calculated standard errors, a design effect of 2 and, in order to have a coefficient of variation (CV) of less than 15%, 767 EAs needed to be sampled. Altogether this sampled number of EAs would be sufficient to generate estimates, including at the stratum level. The number of EAs per stratum were computed using a power allocation of 0.3 (see Annex 12.1 of the final CFSVA report for more details).
Selection Procedure of households
Existing listings of all households in each EA were the basis for the selection of households. The households were selected using Simple Random Sampling (SRS) from household lists in each EA. In every EA, 34 households were sampled, 30 of which were surveyed for health and nutrition and 10 for food security. For the latter, every third sampled household was included. Where listings were not available, the team generated a listing with the local leaders before proceeding.
Weighting
The samples in the Uganda CFSVA were designed to be representative at geographic stratum level with the addition of 2 strata of refugee population. In other words, a separate sample was drawn in each stratum.
In order to report correctly at global level or using other aggregation levels, it is necessary to correct the different sampling probability of each household.
A household weighting system has to be calculated for running the analysis in SPSS (or other statisical software package). ALWAYS apply WEIGHTS in the analysis. As every household has the same weight in a particular stratum, weighting or not weighting for stratum level analysis does not make any difference. However, in order not to forget to weight households in other analyses and to report national averages, it is advisable to leave always the weight active.
In order to report correctly at global level or using other aggregation levels, it is necessary to correct the different sampling probability of each household.
A household weighting system has to be calculated for running the analysis in SPSS (or other statisical software package). ALWAYS apply WEIGHTS in the analysis. As every household has the same weight in a particular stratum, weighting or not weighting for stratum level analysis does not make any difference. However, in order not to forget to weight households in other analyses and to report national averages, it is advisable to leave always the weight active.
Data Collection
Dates of Data Collection
| Start | End |
|---|---|
| 2008-10-16 | 2008-12-15 |
Data Collection Mode
Face-to-face [f2f]
Supervision
Additional supervision was provided by the technical team which was comprised of staff from or affiliated to UBOS, WFP, FAO, Ministry of Health, FEWS NET, UNICEF, World Vision and Ministry of Agriculture. This supervision involved spot visits and, more often, providing technical back-stopping.
Data Collection Notes
The assessment started off on September 21st with a one-week training of 6 teams covering the three strata in the eastern region of Busoga, Bugisu/Sebei and parts of Teso. Each team constituted of 1- supervisor, 1-data editor, and 7-enumerators. The training was jointly conducted by trainers from the different agencies before they spread out to the Northern, central and southwestern regions. Each of the trainings was for a period of 1 week.
The entire training lasted from 21st September -11th October. The training involved three days of discussing the tool, one day of practicals and one day of lessons leant session from the practical. Data collection for the teams that trained earlier started on the 27th September. All teams were in the field by the 16th October 2008. Data collection was completed in all the regions on December 15th while data entry was on going.
During the data collection, random supervision checks were carried out in all the regions by agencies and GOU staff from Uganda Bureau of Statistics.
The survey team was constituted as follows;
1. One supervisor was the team leader. The team leader was responsible for team cohesion, planning and survey execution, introducing the team to the local authorities, allocation of responsibility to enumerators in the field, sampling households in liaison with the data editor, and logistical coordination. The supervisor also had an added responsibility of conducting focus group discussions in some EAs.
2. One data editor, whose overall task was to ensure quality of the questionnaires by physical auditing and editing the questionnaires whilst in the field. The data editor had the prerogative to request the enumerators to re-do a particular questionnaire or section of questionnaire if they found it necessary. The data editor was also responsible for conducting the community questionnaire.
3. Three enumerators were tasked to administer the household food security questionnaire.
4. Two enumerators were responsible for administering the nutrition questionnaire - one using a PDA , the other using the hard copy questionnaire.
5. One enumerator was responsible for taking child measurements.
6. One enumerator was responsible for enumerating the market questionnaire and partnering with the child measurements enumerator.
Generally one team was allocated per stratum. Where the stratum was considered too large for one team, two teams were allocated per stratum.
The entire training lasted from 21st September -11th October. The training involved three days of discussing the tool, one day of practicals and one day of lessons leant session from the practical. Data collection for the teams that trained earlier started on the 27th September. All teams were in the field by the 16th October 2008. Data collection was completed in all the regions on December 15th while data entry was on going.
During the data collection, random supervision checks were carried out in all the regions by agencies and GOU staff from Uganda Bureau of Statistics.
The survey team was constituted as follows;
1. One supervisor was the team leader. The team leader was responsible for team cohesion, planning and survey execution, introducing the team to the local authorities, allocation of responsibility to enumerators in the field, sampling households in liaison with the data editor, and logistical coordination. The supervisor also had an added responsibility of conducting focus group discussions in some EAs.
2. One data editor, whose overall task was to ensure quality of the questionnaires by physical auditing and editing the questionnaires whilst in the field. The data editor had the prerogative to request the enumerators to re-do a particular questionnaire or section of questionnaire if they found it necessary. The data editor was also responsible for conducting the community questionnaire.
3. Three enumerators were tasked to administer the household food security questionnaire.
4. Two enumerators were responsible for administering the nutrition questionnaire - one using a PDA , the other using the hard copy questionnaire.
5. One enumerator was responsible for taking child measurements.
6. One enumerator was responsible for enumerating the market questionnaire and partnering with the child measurements enumerator.
Generally one team was allocated per stratum. Where the stratum was considered too large for one team, two teams were allocated per stratum.
Questionnaires
Questionnaires
1. Household questionnaire covering basic household profile and food security (questions on demographics, education, housing, labour migration, agriculture and production, livestock, livelihoods, expenditure, market access, food consumption, shocks and coping, water and sanitation and assistance.)
2. Health and Nutrition questionnaire. Anthropometric measurements were taken from children 6 - 59 months. Weight and height measurements were taken from children using wooden height boards and UNICEF electronic Scale 890 – SECA. MUAC measurements were taken from mothers.
3. Community questionnaire (administered to leaders and key informants in each locality).
4. Markets and Traders questionnaire (covering key market points within each stratum).
2. Health and Nutrition questionnaire. Anthropometric measurements were taken from children 6 - 59 months. Weight and height measurements were taken from children using wooden height boards and UNICEF electronic Scale 890 – SECA. MUAC measurements were taken from mothers.
3. Community questionnaire (administered to leaders and key informants in each locality).
4. Markets and Traders questionnaire (covering key market points within each stratum).
Data Processing
Data Editing
A team of clerks received and recorded all questionnaires, specifically checking for completeness of the questionnaires, the number of questionnaires and enumeration areas completed against the expected per stratum and accuracy of the entries of the identification page of each datasheet.
Other Processing
The database was a simple Microsoft Access database with a data capture screen designed on the datasheet. The backend storage was centrally located on a remote server. The data entered was regularly backed up every morning before a new set of data was entered. The database was designed with controls and quality checks to minimise outlier, errors and to ensure mandatory entries. All data was stored in MS Access and converted to SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) for labelling and synchronisation with other software.
Data cleaning was an iterative process from entry to analysis stage. At the time of the analysis however, the team was mostly dealing with outlier and/or missing values. Weights were created for the household food security, nutrition, community and market datasets prior to analysis. Analysis for the household food security, trader and community data was done using SPSS, while nutrition data was analysed using the Emergency Nutrition Assessment (ENA) software.
Data cleaning was an iterative process from entry to analysis stage. At the time of the analysis however, the team was mostly dealing with outlier and/or missing values. Weights were created for the household food security, nutrition, community and market datasets prior to analysis. Analysis for the household food security, trader and community data was done using SPSS, while nutrition data was analysed using the Emergency Nutrition Assessment (ENA) software.
Data Appraisal
Data Appraisal
Another team of clerks/editors carried out manual edit checks for systematic and other errors in recording or mis-recording that could be "captured by the eye" and fixed by consulting the relevant field editors and/or the provided checklist. The editors ensured that all the datasheets passed through to the data entry clerks were void of errors of a magnitude that would render a questionnaire unusable. The editing was done in batches of EAs per stratum. Altogether, a total of 7,271 household food security, 20,381 nutrition and health, 746 community and 379 trader questionnaires were returned. In addition, notes from 25 focus group discussions were also submitted from the field.
Access policy
Contacts
| Name | Affiliation | URL | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping | World Food Programme | wfp.vaminfo@wfp.org | Link |
Citation requirements
Use of the dataset must be acknowledged using a citation which would include:
- the Identification of the Primary Investigator
- the title of the survey (including acronym and year of implementation)
- the survey reference number
- the source and date of download
Example:
World Food Programme. Uganda Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis Assessment 2008. Ref. UGA_2008_CFSVA_v01_M. Dataset downloaded from http://nada.vam.wfp.org/index.php/catalog on [date].
- the Identification of the Primary Investigator
- the title of the survey (including acronym and year of implementation)
- the survey reference number
- the source and date of download
Example:
World Food Programme. Uganda Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis Assessment 2008. Ref. UGA_2008_CFSVA_v01_M. Dataset downloaded from http://nada.vam.wfp.org/index.php/catalog on [date].
Disclaimer and copyrights
Disclaimer
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Metadata production
DDI Document ID
DDI_UGA_2008_CFSVA_v01_M
Producers
| Name | Abbreviation | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amit Wadhwa | AW | WFP | Data Archivist |
| World Bank Development Data Group | DECDG | The World Bank | Reviewed the metadata |
Date of Metadata Production
2009-09-08
DDI Document version
Version 02 (February 2014). Edited version, the initial version (Version 01 - September 2009, DDI-UGA-WFP-CFSVA-2008-v1.0) of DDI was done by Amit Wadhwa (WFP).
Following DDI elements are edited, DDI ID, Study ID, and Abbreviation. External resources (questionnaires and report) are attached to the DDI.
Following DDI elements are edited, DDI ID, Study ID, and Abbreviation. External resources (questionnaires and report) are attached to the DDI.