Browse by sub-sector
Open all 203 in the libraryHousehold Food Security & Resilience
Household-level food consumption, coping, hunger, and resilience measurement, including standardized scales such as FCS, rCSI, HHS, and HDDS and resilience analysis.
Output
Goal
Food Assistance & Distribution
In-kind, cash, and voucher food assistance, including distribution monitoring, post-distribution monitoring, and beneficiary outcome measurement.
Output
Immediate Outcome
Market Systems & Value Chains
Food market functioning, price monitoring, market access, and value chain performance relevant to household food access.
Output
Goal
School Feeding Programs
School meals and take-home rations, including coverage, attendance, and food access outcomes for school-age children.
Output
Goal
Agricultural Livelihoods & Production
Production, food stocks, and agricultural livelihood activities that contribute to household food availability and access.
Output
Goal
Methods by outcome type
Match the method to the outcome, not to what is easiest to collect.
| Outcome type | Primary method | Observation | Key instruments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Food consumption & adequacy | Household survey using a standardized consumption module | Not required (structured recall) | Food Consumption Score (FCS), CARI console |
| Dietary diversity | Household or individual survey using a standardized diversity module | Not required (structured recall) | HDDS (household), MDD-W (women of reproductive age) |
| Coping & hunger | Household survey using a standardized experience or coping module | Not required (structured recall) | reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI), Household Hunger Scale (HHS), FIES |
| Food access & markets | Market price monitoring and market functionality assessment | Market visits and price collection required | WFP VAM price monitoring, FEWS NET market and price analysis |
| Assistance delivery | Distribution and post-distribution monitoring | Distribution-site observation required for delivery monitoring | Post-distribution monitoring surveys, CALP cash and voucher guidance |
| Resilience | Household survey with resilience determinants, analyzed against shocks | Not required (structured recall, repeated rounds) | FAO RIMA, repeated FCS or rCSI rounds for trend |
Common evaluation questions
The questions that anchor design and data-collection decisions, grouped by cluster.
Household Food Security & Resilience
Did household food consumption change among the target population?
Evidence: Household survey using the Food Consumption Score (FCS) and rCSI at baseline and endline, reported through the CARI console. Design: Outcome evaluation, before-and-after.
Are households better able to absorb shocks after the program?
Evidence: Resilience analysis (FAO RIMA) or repeated food security rounds covering a shock period. Design: Outcome evaluation / resilience analysis.
Food Assistance & Distribution
Did food assistance reach intended households as planned?
Evidence: Distribution records triangulated with post-distribution monitoring surveys against the targeting criteria. Design: Implementation evaluation.
Did assisted households show improved food consumption relative to need?
Evidence: Post-distribution food consumption measures (FCS, rCSI) compared against a defined reference point. Design: Outcome evaluation.
Market Systems & Value Chains
Did market functionality and food availability change in the program area?
Evidence: Market price monitoring and market functionality assessment (WFP VAM or FEWS NET methods) over time. Design: Outcome evaluation, before-and-after.
Is cash or voucher assistance appropriate given market conditions?
Evidence: Market assessment and price monitoring informing modality choice, per CALP guidance. Design: Formative / implementation evaluation.
School Feeding Programs
Did the school feeding program reach enrolled children with the intended coverage?
Evidence: Program records on meals or rations delivered triangulated with attendance data. Design: Implementation evaluation.
Did participating children or households show changes in food access?
Evidence: Household survey measures (HDDS or FCS) for participating households at baseline and endline. Design: Outcome evaluation.
Agricultural Livelihoods & Production
Did the program change household food availability from own production?
Evidence: Household survey on production, stocks, and consumption sources at baseline and endline. Design: Outcome evaluation, before-and-after.
Did supported livelihood activities translate into improved food consumption?
Evidence: Food consumption and dietary diversity measures (FCS, HDDS) alongside livelihood indicators. Design: Outcome evaluation.
The standards that matter
Food security has a set of well-defined, standardized measurement scales, and most reconciliation problems come from rewording or recombining them. Use the published modules: FCS and rCSI (with the CARI console) for consumption and coping, HHS for household hunger, HDDS and MDD-W for dietary diversity, and FIES for the experience-based SDG 2.1.2 measure. For situation classification, IPC and the Cadre Harmonise provide a common severity scale; FEWS NET and WFP VAM supply market and early-warning analysis; and FAO RIMA covers resilience. Apply each scale by its own guidance rather than inventing thresholds, so your numbers align with national and cluster reporting.
IPC (Integrated Food Security Phase Classification) & Cadre Harmonise ↗
Common classification system and severity scale for acute and chronic food insecurity; the Cadre Harmonise is the compatible classification used in the Sahel and West Africa.
Food Consumption Score (FCS) and CARI (WFP) ↗
Standardized food consumption indicator and the Consolidated Approach for Reporting Indicators of Food Security console that combines FCS, rCSI, and coping-capacity measures.
Household Hunger Scale (HHS) (FANTA) ↗
Standardized experience-based household hunger module with a published indicator definition and measurement guide.
Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) (FANTA) ↗
Standardized household dietary diversity module measuring the number of food groups consumed, with a published measurement guide.
Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W) (FAO) ↗
Standardized dietary diversity indicator for women of reproductive age, used as a proxy for micronutrient adequacy, with a published measurement guide.
Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) (FAO, SDG 2.1.2) ↗
Experience-based food insecurity scale and the basis for SDG indicator 2.1.2 on moderate or severe food insecurity.
WFP VAM (Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping) ↗
WFP food security analysis function providing assessment methods, market price data, and food security monitoring.
FEWS NET ↗
Famine Early Warning Systems Network providing food security early warning, market, and price analysis.
FAO RIMA (Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis) ↗
Quantitative methodology for estimating household resilience to food insecurity and its determinants.
CALP Network ↗
Reference guidance and standards for cash and voucher assistance, including market-based response analysis.
Common mistakes to avoid
Rewording a standardized scale
FCS, rCSI, HHS, HDDS, MDD-W, and FIES are defined by published modules. Changing the questions, recall period, or food groups breaks comparability with national and cluster datasets. Use the module verbatim.
Inventing or borrowing thresholds
Each scale has its own published cutoffs and analysis rules. Applying a threshold the guidance does not specify, or carrying one over from another scale, produces figures that will not reconcile. Follow the scale guidance for classification.
Treating IPC phases as a survey indicator
IPC and the Cadre Harmonise are classification systems built from converging evidence, not a single questionnaire result. Reporting an IPC phase from one indicator departs from the IPC protocol.
Combining indicators outside the CARI console
CARI defines how FCS, rCSI, and coping-capacity measures combine into a food security classification. Mixing them in an ad hoc way departs from the CARI methodology.
Using a dietary diversity score as a hunger or consumption measure
HDDS and MDD-W measure diet diversity, not hunger or consumption adequacy. Substituting one standardized scale for another answers a different question than the one the indicator name implies.
Collecting food insecurity data without sensitivity protocols
Food insecurity disclosure and data collection in high-severity settings need consent, confidentiality, and respondent-burden safeguards consistent with the relevant scale guidance, not an afterthought.
Frequently asked questions
Which food security indicator should I use for a donor proposal?
Use a standardized scale by its published module rather than custom wording. For household consumption and coping, the Food Consumption Score (FCS) and reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI), reported through the WFP CARI console, are widely accepted. For hunger, use the Household Hunger Scale (HHS); for dietary diversity, HDDS or MDD-W; and for the experience-based SDG 2.1.2 measure, FIES. State the module, recall period, and analysis rules so reviewers can reconcile your figures with national and cluster reporting.
What is the difference between IPC and a household survey scale like FCS?
They operate at different levels. FCS, rCSI, HHS, HDDS, and FIES are household or individual survey scales measured directly with respondents. IPC and the Cadre Harmonise are area classification systems that combine converging evidence, including survey indicators, into a severity phase for a population and area. You can feed survey scales into an IPC analysis, but a single survey indicator is not itself an IPC phase.
Can I change the questions or recall period in a standardized scale?
No. The value of FCS, rCSI, HHS, HDDS, MDD-W, and FIES comes from using the published module exactly, including the food groups, recall period, and scoring. Reworded versions are no longer comparable to other datasets and cannot be benchmarked against national or cluster figures. If a scale does not fit, choose a different standardized scale rather than altering one.
How should I decide between in-kind, cash, or voucher assistance for monitoring?
Modality choice is informed by market conditions, not by the monitoring scale alone. Use market assessment and price monitoring, drawing on WFP VAM or FEWS NET methods and CALP guidance, to judge whether markets can supply the response. Then monitor delivery through distribution and post-distribution monitoring, and measure outcomes with standardized consumption or diversity scales. The market analysis and the outcome measurement answer different questions and are planned separately.
How do I measure resilience rather than just current food security?
Current food security scales describe status at a point in time. Resilience is about the capacity to maintain food security through shocks, which requires either a dedicated resilience methodology such as FAO RIMA, or repeated rounds of a food security scale that span a shock period so you can observe whether households recover. Decide up front which approach the evaluation question requires, because they need different data structures.