0 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya May 2022 | Volume II – Annexes A, B, C, D, E, F, G, & H IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation & Learning Associate Award ABOUT IMPEL The Implementer-Led Evaluation & Learning Associate Award (IMPEL) works to improve the design and implementation of Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA)-funded resilience food security activities (RFSAs) through implementer-led evaluations and knowledge sharing. Funded by the USAID Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA), IMPEL will gather information and knowledge in order to measure performance of RFSAs, strengthen accountability, and improve guidance and policy. This information will help the food security community of practice and USAID to design projects and modify existing projects in ways that bolster performance, efficiency, and effectiveness. IMPEL is a seven-year activity (2019–2026) implemented by Save the Children (lead), TANGO International, Tulane University, Causal Design, Innovations for Poverty Action, and International Food Policy Research Institute. RECOMMENDED CITATION IMPEL. (2022). Baseline Study of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II). Washington, DC: The Implementer-Led Evaluation & Learning Associate Award. STUDY TEAM PHOTO CREDITS Mark Njuguna / Save the Children DISCLAIMER This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the Implementer-Led Evaluation & Learning (IMPEL) award and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. CONTACT INFORMATION IMPEL Activity c/o Save the Children 899 North Capitol Street NE, Suite #900 Washington, DC 20002 www.fsnnetwork.org/IMPEL IMPEL@savechildren.org PREPARED BY: Jeanne Downen Chief of Party Mark Langworthy, PhD Management Oversight/Survey Methods Specialist Gheda Temsah, PhD Baseline Study Team Lead Monica Mueller Senior Qualitative Specialist/Quality Assurance Stephanie Martin, PhD Senior Research Scientist Thomas Bower Senior Research Scientist Hannah Martin Research Associate Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Table of Contents i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms...........................................................................................................iii Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study ProtocoL ............................................................................................................. 1 Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 3 2. Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis......................................................................................... 3 3. Qualitative Data Analysis..................................................................................................................19 4. Ethical Considerations and Informed Consent.................................................................................19 5. Limitations and potential challenges................................................................................................20 6. Dissemination of findings.................................................................................................................21 7. Timeline............................................................................................................................................21 Annex 1A: First Stage Sample Selection Guidance...............................................................................25 Annex 1B: Sampling Frame by IP and Country .....................................................................................28 Annex 2. List of Targeted Commodities and Improved Agricultural Management Practices and Technologies.........................................................................................................................................38 Annex 3. Schedule Training of Trainers and Main Training of Enumerators .......................................44 Annex 4: Informed Consent Statement................................................................................................54 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires.......................................................................55 Household Questionnaire.....................................................................................................................55 Resilience Questionnaire....................................................................................................................114 Annex C: 2021 Kenya Nawiri RFSA Baseline Study Personnel ..........................143 Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan ...................................................147 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................147 2. Data Collection Mode and Data Transmission Procedures........................................................147 3. BHA Indicator Definitions...........................................................................................................150 4. Description of Promoted commodities and Agricultural Practices............................................155 5. Data Analysis..............................................................................................................................161 Appendix 1. Household weights.........................................................................................................167 Appendix 2. Methodology for estimating average yield from cattle, CAMEL, and goat production . 169 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates............................................................171 Annex E1: Tabular Summary of Baseline Indicator Estimates.............................................................171 Annex E2: Tabular Summary of County Comparisons of Baseline Indicator Estimates.....................268 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables ..............................................................286 Annex E3: County-level Estimates of Select Indicators from the 2018 PREG II Baseline Survey .......284 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning ii Table of Contents Annex H: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies......459 VOLUME I Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Analysis Tables......................................357 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Acronyms iii ACRONYMS ANC APHRC ASAL BCS BHA BL CEFM CHC CIDP CNAP CPR CRS CSPro DHS FAO FCS FFP FIES FTF GAIN GAM GDP GHT HDI HSNP IBTCI IMPEL IP IPC KDHS kg KNAP LSMS LZ MAD MC MDD-C MDD-W MFI NFNSP Antenatal Care African Population and Health Research Center Arid and Semi-Arid Land Body Condition Score Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance Baseline Child Early and Forced Marriage Centre for Humanitarian Change County Integrated Development Plan County Nutrition Action Plan Contraceptive Prevalence Rate Catholic Relief Services Census and Survey Processing System Demographic and Health Survey Food and Agriculture Organization Food Consumption Score Food for Peace Food Insecurity Experience Scale Feed the Future Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition Global Acute Malnutrition Gross Domestic Product Gendered Household Type Human Development Index Hunger Safety Net Programme International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning ImplementingPartner Integrated Phase Classification Kenya Demographic and Health Survey Kilogram Kenya Nutrition Action Plan Living Standards Measurement Survey Livelihood Zone Minimum Acceptable Diet Mercy Corps Children’s Minimum Dietary Diversity Women’s Minimum Dietary Diversity Microfinance Institution National Food and Nutrition Security Policy IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning iv Acronyms NRM OFDA Natural Resource Management Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance ORS ORT PBS Oral Rehydration solution Oral Rehydration Therapy Population-Based Survey PEA PPP PREG RFSA RTI SC TANGO TMG ToT USAID VE VSLA WASH WFP Political Economy Analysis Purchasing Power Parity Partnership for Resilience and Economic Growth Resilience Food Security Activity Research Triangle Institute Save the Children Technical Assistance to NGOs The Manoff Group Training of Trainers United States Agency for International Development Village Enterprise Village Savings and Loan Association Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene World Food Programme Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 1 ANNEX A: NAWIRI RESILIENCE FOOD SECURITY ACTIVITIES IN KENYA BASELINE STUDY PROTOCOL October 8, 2021 This document was produced for review by the U.S. Agency for International Development. It was prepared by TANGO International. Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol – FINAL Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) Cooperative Agreement Number: 72DFFP19LA00003 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 2 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol ABBREVIATIONS BHA Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) BL Baseline CAPI Computer-assisted personal interview CSPro Census and Survey Processing System FFP Office of Food for Peace FTF Feed the Future GHT Gendered household type IDEAL Implementer-Led Design, Evidence, Analysis and Learning IMPEL Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning IP Implementing partner KNBS Kenya National Bureau of Statistics MCHN Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition NDMA National Drought Management Authority PBS Population-based survey PPS Probability proportional to size PREG Partnership for Resilience and Economic Growth RFSA Resilience Food Security Activity ToT Training of Trainers USAID United States Agency for International Development WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 3 1. INTRODUCTION The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) supports multi-year resilience food security activities (RFSAs) around the world that improve and sustain the food and nutrition security of vulnerable populations. In 2019 the USAID Office of Food for Peace (FFP) funded two five-year RFSAs in Kenya.1 The Nawiri RFSAs are being implemented by Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in the Isiolo and Marsabit counties and by Mercy Corps (MC) in the Samburu and Turkana counties. The Nawiri RFSAs aim to sustainably reduce persistent acute malnutrition among vulnerable subpopulations. The first two years (Years 1 – 2) include a refine and implement (R & I) period in which the implementing partners conduct formative research to refine their approaches, tools, and processes for the implementation phase (Years 3 – 5). Under the Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning (IMPEL) activity to improve the design and implementation of the USAID BHA RFSAs2, Technical Assistance to NGOs (TANGO) International in collaboration with the implementing partners (IPs) will be conducting a baseline (BL) study of the BHA RFSAs in October 2021. The implementer-led approach provides greater ownership of the evaluation process and promotes wider dissemination and learning within the implementer community. The BL study includes: 1) a population-based household survey to measure standard BHA indicators, and 2) a review of qualitative data from secondary sources. The information generated through the baseline study will be used to inform the implementation phase of the RFSAs, measure performance of the RFSAs, strengthen accountability, and improve guidance and policy. Kimetrica, a local firm, is hired to perform the data collection for the BL survey with close oversight and quality control by TANGO. This protocol describes the data collection tools, field procedures, data collection, quality assurance and data analysis for the BL study. 2. QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The BL study includes a population-based household survey (PBS) conducted among a random sample representative of the entire population of households living in RFSA areas. The primary purpose of the PBS is to provide population-level estimates on standard BHA indicators, and possibly a limited number of questions and indicators proposed by the USAID Mission and IPs. These indicators will serve as points of comparison for the endline survey. The results will be stratified by implementing partner (IP) and county so that they are representative of each county within the IP’s implementation area. Data collection for the BL study is scheduled to take place in October 2021 to overlap with the lean season in order to capture food security conditions when households are in seasonal stress (see Figure 1). The BL survey will be conducted using face-to-face interviewing with COVID-19 mitigation procedures in place. 1 In 2020, FFP merged with the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) to form the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) to streamline USAID humanitarian responses. 2 Formerly referred to as development food security activities (DFSAs). IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 4 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol Figure 1. Seasonal calendar, Kenya Source: FEWS NET 2.1 Sampling Design The BL survey sampling strategy uses a cross-sectional, multi-stage cluster design. In the first stage, clusters are randomly selected from each county in the IPs sampling frame using probability proportional to the size of the county (PPS). The sampling frame consists of all sublocations/villages within the RFSA target areas, i.e., areas that are expected to receive the activity’s interventions.3 Table 1 illustrates the number of clusters and households included in the BL sampling frame. Table 1. Number of Clusters and Households Included in the BL Sampling Frames Number of clusters Number of Households CRS Isiolo 34 1,000 Marsabit 34 1,000 Mercy Corps Samburu 34 1,000 Turkana 34 1,000 TOTAL 136 4,000 Note: Clusters refer to census-defined enumeration areas. Based on the final list of geographies provided by the IPs, TANGO, via its local partner, will work with the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics to identify the EAs that best correspond to the list of targeted sublocations/villages. The number of clusters per county was determined based on an equal allocation of 30 households per cluster and the minimum required sample size of 1,000 households per county (see Section 2.1.1 for sample size calculations). The number of clusters = 1,000 / 30 = 33.3 which is rounded up to 34. 2.1.1 Sample size The sample size calculation for the BL survey is based on the prevalence of poverty (percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP) and the prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity (based on the FIES). Although the primary objective of the RFSAs is to reduce acute malnutrition, the BL survey will not include anthropometric measures because this information will be collected by the IPs through a routine monitoring system. For this reason, the survey uses the indicators of poverty and food insecurity as the basis of the sample size calculations. Furthermore, FIES is considered a resilience- 3 CRS provided a list of sublocations, and Mercy Corps provided a list of villages. The list of sublocations/villages represent areas the IPs intend to target with the understanding that the intervention areas may shift overtime depending on the results of the ongoing formative research, and that the intensity of the interventions may vary by area. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 5 based indicator. Statistical information from the 2018 baseline survey of the USAID Partnership for Resilience and Economic Growth (PREG) Initiative in Northern Kenya Phase II and guidance from the Feed the Future Population-based Sampling Guide were used to inform the selection of the parameters for the sample size calculations. The sample size formula used is for detecting changes in proportion variables. The following parameter values were applied in the calculations: ● Design effect of 54 ● 95 percent confidence level for one-tailed test ● 80 percent power for one-tailed test ● Expected change of 13 to 14 percentage points over the three-year implementation phase (approximately 4 to 5 percentage points per year)5 ● Non-response factor of 20 percent to account for estimated household nonresponse rate6 Applying these values and selecting the largest value results with a minimum required sample size of 965 households per county which was rounded to a minimum required sample size of 1,000 households per county and 4,000 households in total. Table 2 summarizes the sample size requirements for the BL study. With a sample size of 2,000 households per IP RFSA area, the BL study is powered to detect a 10- percentage point reduction in poverty and FIES at the IP level (see Table 3). Table 2. BL PBS Sample Size Requirements for Each County Indicator* Estimate of proportion at time point 1 (PE1) 1 Estimate of proportion at time point 2 (PE2) Estimated Design Effect1 Household Sample Size Needed Per County Households Needed Per County with 20 Percent Nonresponse Adjustment Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP 0.63 0.49 5 772 965 Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity (FIES) 0.80 0.67 5 708 885 NOTE: Assumptions for all calculations: one-sided test, alpha=0.05, beta=0.80, clusters per county = 34, households per cluster=30. 1 Based on a subsample of the 2018 PREG II baseline survey that overlaps geographically with the RFSA counties (i.e., Isiolo, Marsabit, Samburu and Turkana). 4 The 2018 PREG II baseline survey shows a design effect of 10.4 for the FIES indicator and 12.6 for the prevalence of poverty among the subsample that overlaps with the counties of this study (Isiolo, Marsabit, Samburu, and Turkana). However, the Feed the Future Population-based Sampling Guide recommends a design effect value of 5 for sample size calculations that utilize the prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity (based on the FIES) and the prevalence of poverty. 5 Although the RFSAs are five-year awards, Years 1–2 mark the research phase and Years 3–5 are the implementation phase. An expected change of 13 to 14 percentage points was selected as the minimum difference that can be detected in the indicators on the county level over the three-year implementation phase given the recommended parameters for sample size calculations prescribed in the FTF sampling guide as well as budgetary constraints on the maximum sample size. This comes out to a 22.2 percent reduction in the prevalence of poverty at the county level over the three-year year implementation period (7.4 percent per year) and a 16.3 percent reduction in FIES (5.4 percent per year). 6 The estimated non-response rate is based on the 80 percent response rate of the PREG surveys. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 6 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol Table 3. BL PBS Sample Size Requirements for Each IP RFSA area Indicator* Estimate of proportion at time point 1 (PE1) 1 Estimate of proportion at time point 2 (PE2) Estimated Design Effect1 Household Sample Size Needed per IP area Households Needed per IP area with 20 Percent Nonresponse Adjustment Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP 0.63 0.53 5 1,501 1,876 Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity (FIES) 0.80 0.71 5 1,407 1,759 NOTE: Assumptions for all calculations: one-sided test, alpha=0.05, beta=0.80, clusters per county = 34, households per cluster=30. 1 Based on a subsample of the 2018 PREG II baseline survey that overlaps geographically with the RFSA counties (i.e., Isiolo, Marsabit, Samburu and Turkana). 2.2.2 Sample selection The sample for each county will be selected using multi-stage cluster sampling with two stages of sampling: 1) selection of clusters, and 2) selection of households. In the first stage, clusters are randomly selected from each county in each IP’s sampling frame using probability proportional to size (PPS). To mitigate against possible inaccessibility, a “random-generated reserve sample” will be drawn using a two-phase approach as stipulated in the Feed the Future Population-based Survey Sampling Guide.7 This entails selecting the required 34 clusters for each county plus 9 reserve clusters (25 percent of the required number of EAs) in case a cluster needs to be replaced, resulting with a total of 43 clusters selected per county. Census enumeration areas (EAs) will be used as clusters rather than villages because the boundaries of EAs are well-defined and easier to locate in contrast to the boundaries of a village. For the CRS Nawiri RFSA areas, the first stage sample selection will be based on a list of EAs that correspond to the sublocations provided by the partner. The first stage sample selection for the MC Nawiri RFSA areas will be based on a list of EAs that correspond to the villages and sublocations MC plans to implement its interventions.8 TANGO will provide KNBS with the list of sublocations/villages and 7 At the first phase of the first stage of sample selection a total of 43 (34 plus 9 reserve) EAs are sampled in each county using systematic PPS sampling. At the second phase of the first stage, 9 out of the 43 EAs are randomly subsampled using fractional interval systematic sampling. The survey will be conducted in the 34 EAs that are not selected at the second phase. The nine reserve EAs selected in the second phase are numbered 1 through 9 in the order in which they were randomly sampled to define the sequence of their release. If only one reserve EA is needed, the reserve EA labeled “number 1” will replace the first EA from among the original 34 EAs that cannot be accessed. Inaccessible EAs are replaced with reserve EAs using this approach as needed in order to achieve the overall number of required EAs (34). For additional details see: https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/FTF-PBS-Sampling%20Guide-Apr2018.pdf. 8 Given that the geographies in CRS’ sampling frame was comprised of sublocations, the first stage sampling of EAs for the Isiolo and Marsabit counties was conducted in two phases. In Phase 1, TANGO selected 43 sublocations for each county (Isiolo and Marsabit) using probability proportional to size (PPS). In some cases, a sublocation was Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 7 request KNBS to map those areas to the overlapping EAs and subsequently select 43 clusters (EAs) from each county. Annex 1a illustrates the guidance provided by TANGO to Kimetrica to inform KNBS’ selection of clusters and a note regarding the calculation of sampling weights that takes into account the different sampling approaches used for each IP’s areas. Annex 1b provides the sampling frame for each IP. In the second sampling stage, households are selected within each selected cluster from completed lists of all households compiled through a household listing conducted in the sampled clusters by Kimetrica.9 BHA surveys define a household as “a person or group of people who live together and share meals” or “eating from the same pot.”10 The name of the head of household will be recorded for each identified household. A total of 30 households will be selected per cluster using systematic random sampling from the household listing. During the listing exercise, Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates for each cluster will be taken by using a commonly accepted central point in the cluster. GPS coordinates will also be taken for each surveyed household to facilitate locating sampled households during the main data collection. Thus, GPS coordinates will not be collected again during data collection. The data entry program used during data collection will be fitted with the serial number assigned to the household during the listing so that the GPS coordinates from the listing exercise can be linked to the household survey data. All household members eligible for each module are selected.11 For modules requiring data about the household (e.g., food consumption; resilience; poverty, and water, sanitation, and hygiene), no individuals are sampled because the household is the sampling unit. Household survey respondents for those modules are typically the head of household, spouse, or the adult most knowledgeable about the module topic (e.g., the adult responsible for food preparation for the module on food security or food consumption expenditures). Other modules have specific eligibility criteria. The following is the protocol for selecting eligible respondents: ● All children under 24 months will be selected for questions on children’s feeding practices. The mother or caretaker of the eligible children (i.e., all children under 24 months) will be interviewed as a proxy respondent. ● All children under five years will be selected for questions on diarrhea. The mother or caretaker of the eligible children (i.e., all children under five years) will be interviewed as a proxy respondent. ● All women between the ages of 15-49 will be selected for questions on dietary diversity, antenatal care (ANC), contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) and family planning. ● All women and men in a union who earned cash will be selected for questions on gender and cash. selected more than once given its relative size. In Phase 2, KNBS selected EAs from the list of selected sublocations that TANGO provided. The EAs were selected using PPS. The number of EAs to be selected per sublocation equals the number of times the sublocation was selected in the first phase. The sampling frame for the Mercy Corps Nawiri areas is a mix of villages and sublocations, so the first stage sampling of EAs was conducted in one phase. KNBS listed all EAs that best correspond to the list of MC geographies. From this stacked list of EAs, for each county (Samburu and Turkana), KNBS selected 43 EAs using PPS. 9 The household listing will be conducted using tablets loaded with the CSPro data entry application. 10 Enumerators will be trained on how to record polygamous households. If co-wives live in the same house and eat from the same pot, they are recorded as members of the same household. If the co-wives sleep in different houses and one co-wife prepares food for all household members, then they are all considered eating from the same pot and members of the same household. However, if the co-wives sleep in different houses and prepare food separately, they are not members of the same household. 11 Although there is no need to adjust for the probability of selecting individuals since all eligible individuals are selected, weights are calculated to compensate for individual non-response. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 8 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol ● All women and men in a union will be selected for questions on access to credit and group membership. ● All farmers with access to a plot of land over which they make decisions or who have animals that they manage will be selected for Module G questions on agriculture.12 All farmers who manage cattle, goats, and camels will be selected for Modules 7.50, 7.51, and 7.53, respectively. See Annex 2 for the list of targeted commodities by IP. Alternative respondents can be interviewed if they are knowledgeable about the farmer’s agricultural practices and decisions. 2.2 Questionnaire The questionnaire to be used for the BL PBS is adapted from the standard BHA PBS questionnaire. The survey tool will not collect anthropometric measurements for children and women.13 Given that yield estimates for crops that are based on self-reported data are not reliable, the baseline survey will not collect information on crop yield. Information on yield from the production of livestock (cattle, goats, and camels) will be collected. However, in lieu of self-reported data on livestock weight, the survey will ask farmers to report the average condition of their livestock by type to triangulate with information on livestock weight. Data on the average weight for each category of animal (male, female, young, old) will be obtained from secondary sources such as the International Livestock Research (ILRI), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research organization (KALRO) and Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries. Modules on the agricultural production of livestock were streamlined from the standard questionnaire – i.e., detailed questions on decision-making, breeding, housing, nutrition, and pest/disease control were omitted given that the module on agriculture covers these topics. The BL survey questionnaire includes modules on the following topics: Module A: Household Identification and Informed Consent Module B: Household Roster Module C: Food Security Module D: Child Feeding Practices and Diarrhea Module E: Women's Health, Nutritional Status, Dietary Diversity and Family Planning Module F: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Module G: Agriculture (financial services, value chains, improved management practices) Module J: Gender and Cash Module K: Access to Credit and Group Membership Module R: Resilience Measurement Module 7.50: Agricultural Production – Cattle (Beef and Dairy cows) Module 7.51: Agricultural Production – Goats Module 7.53: Agricultural Production – Camels Module 8: Poverty Measurement 12 The agriculture-related modules will be administered only to farmers working with the commodities of interest identified by the IPs. IPs identified commodities of interest (i.e., crops, livestock and/or aquaculture) based on the value chains they plan to support. This decision is informed by findings from extensive desk reviews as well as ongoing formative research on which value chains are most strongly associated with reduction in chronic malnutrition, the primary objective of the RFSAs. 13 Although the primary objective of the RFSAs is to reduce acute malnutrition in its target areas, the baseline survey will not include anthropometric measures because this information is being collected by IPs through a recurrent monitoring system. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 9 Questions and response options will be adapted to the Kenya country context, such as those that involve food as part of Modules C, D, E, and Module 8, and the types of containers and sanitation facilities as part of Module F. Additionally, the types of improved agricultural practices and value chain activities promoted may vary by IP (Module G), which would then also require contextualization. There will be a single household questionnaire in which IP-specific contextualization are incorporated. For example, the list of improved practices will include practices promoted by both IPs, including those that differ by IP. See Annex 2 for the list of targeted commodities and improved agricultural practices. The questionnaire will be first developed by TANGO in English and then translated by Kimetrica into local languages – namely, Kiswahili and Turkana. 14 The Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pre-testing and Documentation (TRAPD) model for survey translation will be utilized, where the questionnaire will be • translated into the local language by one translator, • reviewed by a second translator, • adjudicated for discrepancies in the presence of the survey manager or cluster coordinator that speaks the language • pretested and • documented. Translations of the questionnaire will be made available in MS Excel and on the CAPI application. The translated version of the questionnaire will use locally appropriate and easy-to-understand terms and concepts to ensure accurate understanding and valid responses. The English version of the main household questionnaire15 is presented in Annex B1 and the modified full household resilience questionnaire16 is presented in Annex B2. Table 4 illustrates the indicators to be measured and the level of disaggregation. Table 4. Indicators to be Measured in the Baseline Survey of the BHA RFSAs in Kenya Indicator Disaggregation Level Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the household, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) Gendered household type (GHT)1 Level of Severity: Moderate, Severe Percentage of households with poor, borderline, and adequate Food Consumption Score (FCS); Mean FCS GHT POVERTY Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy forincome) in USG assisted areas GHT 14 The local firm will recruit enumerators who are well versed in local languages. During training sessions, team leads and enumerators will sit in language groups (Kiswahili and Turkana) and review the questionnaire with a view to ensuring that every day, appropriate local language, terms and concepts are used. Enumerators will have ample time during the training to practice conducting interviews in local languages and entering responses in the data entry forms on the tablets. 15 The main household questionnaire was adapted using the 2018 PREG BL/EL survey and the 2014 Kenya Demographic and Health Survey. However, some items require further contextualization (e.g., volume of water containers) and will be finalized based on input from the local firm. Items that require further refinement pending receipt of inputs from the implementing partners (e.g., value chain commodities, improved practices, etc…) are highlighted in yellow. 16 The resilience module for the 2021 baseline survey of the BHA RFSAs in Kenya is based on the modified full resilience questionnaire used for the 2018 baseline survey of the DFSAs in Uganda. For Uganda, the household questionnaire was modified to include questions needed to assess the community components of resilience and therefore the community questionnaire was not used. An additional module on COVID-19 impacts and coping strategies was incorporated to the resilience questionnaire of this study using the module from the 2020 PREG Phase 1 Recurrent Monitoring Household Survey (RMS) Questionnaire – Round 4. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 10 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol Indicator Disaggregation Level Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP GHT Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percentage shortfall of the poor relative tothe $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line GHT WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE Percent of households using basic drinking water services GHT Percent of households in target areas practicing correct use of recommended household water treatment technologies Technology Type: Chlorination, Flocculant/Disinfectant, Filtration, Solar Disinfection, Boiling Percent of households with access to a basic sanitation service GHT Percent of households in target areas practicing open defecation GHT Percent of households with soap and water at a hand-washing station on premises GHT AGRICULTURE Percent of farmers who used financial services (savings, agricultural credit and/or agricultural insurance) in the past 12 months Sex: Female, Male Percent of farmers who practiced the value chain interventions promoted by the activity in the past 12 months Sex: Female, Male Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies2 Commodity Sex: Female, Male Age (15-29, 30+) Management practice or technology type Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within target areas2 Livestock: commodity, production system, sex, age WOMEN’S HEALTH AND NUTRITION Percentage of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) Age: <19, 19+ years Percent of births receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy None Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy Age: 15-19, 20-29 and 30-49 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methods in the past 12 months Decision-making: alone, jointly, spouse Age: 15-19, 20-29, 30-49 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) Traditional, modern CHILD HEALTH AND NUTRITION3 Percent of children 6–23 months receiving aminimum acceptable diet (MAD) Sex: Female, Male Prevalence of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-C) Sex: Female, Male Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months of age Sex: Female, Male Percent of children under age five (0-59 months) who had diarrhea in the prior two weeks Sex: Female, Male Percent of children under age five (0-59 months) with diarrhea treated with Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) Sex: Female, Male Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 11 Indicator Disaggregation Level GENDER - CASH Percent of women and men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Sex; Female, Male Age: female 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50; male 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash Age: 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner's self￾earned cash Age: 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50 Percent of men in union and earning cash who report spouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self￾earned cash Age: 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50 GENDER CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men who are members of a community group Sex: Female, Male Age: female 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50; male 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50 Percent of women/men in union with access to credit Sex: Female, Male Age: female 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50; male 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50 Percent of women/men in a union who make decisions about credit Decision actors: alone, jointly Sex: Female, Male Age: female 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50; male 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50 RESILIENCE Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index GHT Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses GHT Index of social capital at the household level Social capital components: overall index, bonding sub-index, bridging sub-index; GHT Proportion of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs Financing type; GHT Adaptive Capacity Index None Absorptive Capacity Index None Transformative Capacity Index None NOTES: 1 Following FFP indicator descriptions, FTF defines four gendered household types: households with i) female and male adults, ii) adult female, no adult male, ii) adult male, no adult female, and iv) child, no adults. USAID, 2020. Food for Peace Indicators Handbook. Part I: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for Development Food Security Activities. May 2020. 2 Total number of commodities will not exceed six for crops and livestock combined. 3 Anthropometric measures will be collected by IPs through a recurrent monitoring system. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 12 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 2.3 Field Procedures Data for the BL survey will be collected with tablets using Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI). Tablets will be loaded with the Census and Survey Processing System (CSPro) data entry application which will be developed by Kimetrica. Field procedures will be adapted with COVID-19 safety mitigation protocols at every stage of data collection to mitigate the risk of the virus transmission and safeguard the wellbeing of staff, households, and communities:17 • Avoid/minimize travel between counties and between counties and the capital • Minimize duration of contact between data collection teams and households and time spent in the communities18 • Abide by local rules, regulations, and social/physical distancing guidelines (see Box 1) • Avoid large gatherings and minimize proximity • Ensure adequate training of all staff and data collection teams on Do No Harm and safe approaches for face-to-face interviewing and knowledge of COVID-19 transmission and mitigation (including frequent handwashing with water and soap) • Ensure availability of needed equipment/materials to mitigate virus spread (i.e., face covers, hand sanitizer, soap, and thermometers) • Maintain close oversight and adherence to Do No Harm protocols • Provide information on what to do/whom to contact in the event of a suspected COVID case (i.e., referral to health clinic) 2.3.1 Field Manuals Prior to the start of training, TANGO will develop Enumerator, Team Lead, and Household Listing Manuals based on prior BL surveys and FFP and FTF guidelines. The manuals provide guidance on field procedures and the survey protocol. TANGO will customize the manuals to the BLS questionnaire and 17 The underlying principle guiding the adaptations to the BLS data collection procedures is Do No Harm. Per the USAID/FFP and USAID/OFDA Interim Guidance for Applicants Engaging in COVID-19 Humanitarian Response: in all programming, the safety and security of community members and implementing partner staff are critical; and where remote monitoring is not feasible, update data collection tools and protocols to limit proximity, frequency, and duration of face-to-face contact. 18 Field teams will be instructed to be thorough while adhering to COVID-19 mitigation protocols. The local firm is expected to hire enough enumerators to minimize the overall time spent in each EA. Other ways to minimize frequency of contact include identifying a time of the day when household members are most likely to be home to conduct the interview, and pre-arranging revisits by phone, where possible, since phone numbers will be collected during the listing exercise. Box 1. Guidance to listing agents and data collection teams  Be respectful if households express concern or apprehension to participate in the interview  Perform temperature checks every day before deploying  Wear a mask or facial cover before, during, and after the interview  Encourage the respondent to wear a face cover  Conduct the interview outside or in a well-ventilated space  Discourage other household members from congregating, if this is not possible, try to minimize the number of people present  Maintain at least one-meter distance apart throughout the interview  Avoid handshakes or physical contact  Wash hands with water and soap or use sanitizer/hand alcohol – before and after  Sanitize frequently touches surfaces (e.g., tablets) Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 13 for country-specific field protocols. The Team Lead’s Manual will describe the study design and objectives, roles and responsibilities, rules and regulations, ethics in data collection, field work preparation and data quality assurance protocols. The Enumerator’s Manual will cover similar topics and provides question-by-question guidance for completing the questionnaire including the correct selection of eligible respondents for each module and appropriate interviewing techniques and procedures. The Enumerator’s Manual will also include guidance on operating tablets and understanding CSPro, the software used to program the questionnaire and to capture the data on the tablets. Guidance for COVID-sensitive fieldwork procedures is provided in both the Enumerator and Team Lead Manuals. 2.3.2 Training TANGO will plan to lead a virtual training of trainers (ToT) for the field coordinators, independent survey monitors, and team leads. Training of trainers (ToT): The ToT will be conducted in Nairobi over a five-day period and will be held using Zoom. Kimetrica field coordinators, team leads at IT specialists, as well as the independent survey monitors will participate in the training . During this time, TANGO will lead the training remotely.19 The ToT will focus on roles and responsibilities, organization and supervision of fieldwork, and data quality assurance and performance monitoring. TANGO will also perform a question-by￾question review of the instrument. The training includes time for mock interviews and role-playing using tablets to ensure all participants are well versed in the instrument and in navigating the CSPro program in order to effectively lead the enumerator training. Following the completion of the ToT, each trainer (local firm field coordinators and team leads) will lead an in-person training of enumerators in their respective county. Main training: The main (enumerator) training will be conducted over a seven-day period in Nakuru and will cover all survey modules, followed by one day of field testing of the survey with tablets and revising and finalizing the survey instrument prior to the commencement of data collection. Kimetrica field coordinators and team leads, and the independent survey monitors, previously trained by TANGO during the ToT, will conduct the main training with remote support from TANGO.20 The enumerator training will include a combination of plenary sessions for question-by-question guidance and break-out groups to practice and role-play using the tablets. The break-out groups will be followed by a plenary session debrief to discuss issues experienced and how to handle them. The local survey monitors, previously trained during the ToT, will participate in the main training, and observe the mock interviews and provide feedback. Kimetrica will arrange to hold the training in venues with break-out rooms to ensure that participants are spaced out and can abide by local social distancing requirements. Depending on conditions at the time of the training, the local firm may rent marquis tents and arrange to conduct most of the training outdoors. During the days that the training is held in-doors, the local firm will require participants to wear masks. Physical/social distancing will be adhered to at all times. The local firm will instruct participants to wash their hands with water and soap and use hand sanitizer frequently. COVID-kits, comprising hand sanitizers and face covers/masks, will be distributed to participants at the start of the training. Temperature checks will be taken at the start of each day and anyone presenting with a fever of 100.4° F (38° C) or greater will not be allowed to participate in the training and will self-isolate for a 19 TANGO will conduct the training of trainers in English. 20 TANGO and the trainers will be connected on a WhatsApp group and communicate daily and as needed when issues arise during the training. In addition, TANGO staff will connect via ZOOM and participate in the daily de-brief plenary sessions where issues are discussed among trainers and participants. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 14 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol period of 14 days. Kimetrica will train an additional 20 percent of the total number of required enumerators as back-up. The timeline for training is based on best practices from TANGO’s previous experience training local firms, including TANGO’s more recent experience conducting virtual trainings (e.g., Burkina Faso, Niger, Madagascar and Sudan). Four TANGO staff members will lead the ToT remotely and the same TANGO staff members will be available to serve as resource persons during the main training that will be led by the local firm.21 Prior to the start of trainings, TANGO will develop the training curriculum in collaboration with the local firm and IPs.22 Annex 3 provides the training curriculum for the ToT and main training. Training topics will include data gathering, sampling strategy, human subjects research and informed consent, a review of the survey questionnaire, use of and how to gather data using mobile devices, data checks for quality control, creating backup copies of data, and data archiving and transfer. Participants will be trained on Do No Harm principles and COVID-sensitive data collection protocols, in addition to the standard training on the instrument. Trainings will include background on how COVID-19 is transmitted and methods to prevent its spread. COVID training will also cover enumerator conduct outside of official business, to make sure that enumerators follow health protocols as much as possible in the evenings, when they are not working, and may be more likely to be exposed to the virus. Pilot: At the end of the seven days of the enumerator training, there will be a one-day pilot test conducted in rural areas surrounding Nakuru followed by a discussion session of challenges (e.g., skip logic, wording, sequence/clarity of questions) and needed modifications to the survey, as well as final logistical planning. Each enumerator will complete two full interviews during the pilot test, and team leads and field coordinators will observe enumerators and make notes on their performance which they will share during the debrief. Table 5 summarizes the pre-data collection activities. Table 5. Pre-Data Collection Activities Activity Duration Participants Listing training/household listing exercise 12 days Listing agents Training of trainers 5 days TANGO, Local Firm Field Coordinators, Independent Survey Monitors, IT Specialists Fieldwork Training 7 days Enumerators, Team Leads, Local Firm Coordinators and IT Specialists, Independent Survey Monitors Pilot test of survey instrument and field procedures De-brief and adjustments to questionnaire, tablet, field data collection planning, and other fieldwork logistics. All changes communicated by TANGO to BHA for approval. 1 day 21 As indicated above, TANGO will be connected to the trainers on a WhatsApp group to communicate daily, and as needed when issues arise during the training. In addition, TANGO staff will participate in the daily de-brief plenary sessions where issues are discussed among trainers and participants. 22 IPs will be requested to provide input in the development of definitions for improved management practices. TANGO will also request IPs to provide technical presentations during the training of trainers and the main training to ensure that enumerator teams are knowledgeable of the RFSA’s key target populations and main interventions. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 15 2.3.3 Quantitative Data Collection Data collection will commence on October 12 immediately after the pilot study and will end by November 1, 2021.23 A quantitative data collection team will be formed for each county and consist of enumerators, team leads, a local firm field coordinator and two local independent survey monitors. To collect data from 4,000 households in Nawiri RFSA areas, there will be 24 teams (six teams per county), each consisting of one team lead and five enumerators. Accordingly, the local data collection firm will hire a total of 120 enumerators, 24 team leads, and four field coordinators. One information technology (IT) specialist will be hired to support data collection. TANGO will hire two local independent survey monitors for each county, who will accompany the six teams assigned to their county for the entire duration of data collection to provide quality control and oversight of field work.24 Figure 2 illustrates the structure of the data collection teams for each county. Figure 2. Data Collection Team Structure Per County To the extent possible, Kimetrica will recruit enumerators/team leads from the respective county in which data collection will take place to minimize travel between counties and to minimize security risks and risk of transmission associated with travel. All teams will be trained in the same location (Nakuru) to facilitate cross-learning and consistency in standards and approaches, and they will be deployed for data collection at the same time.25 TANGO staff, independent survey monitors, key personnel from the local data collection firm, and field coordinators will provide continued training and close oversight during the data collection to ensure high quality data collection. Kimetrica field coordinators will organize fieldwork logistics and oversee the progress and quality of fieldwork. Field coordinators will travel with the enumerator teams throughout the data collection 23 Monday, October 11 is an official holiday, therefore data collection is slated to start on October 12 to allow time for a courtesy visit to the County Commission Office and the County Governor’s Office to introduce the survey before the teams begin interviewing households. 24 The exact number will be determined by the availability of qualified local survey monitors who are based in the county. 25 Kimetrica will train an additional 20 percent of enumerators as backup resulting with a total of 144 enumerators trained for the baseline survey (6 enumeration teams per county * 5 enumerators per team per county * 4 counties * 1.20 = 144). IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 16 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol phase and will provide direct supervision of team leads. The field coordinator monitors the progress of field work and make adjustments to the field movement plan as needed. To ensure adequate oversight of field teams, TANGO will hire independent survey monitors (two per county) and train them during the ToT. Survey monitors will be trained on all aspects of field work, including the instrument, operating the CSPro program, entering data in tablets, and monitoring field completion and enumerator performance.26 The local survey monitors will travel with the data collection teams and provide an additional layer of oversight and quality control independent of the local firm field supervisors, who will also be travelling with the field teams. TANGO will form two WhatsApp groups, one with the local firm Survey Director and another with the independent survey monitors. TANGO will communicate daily with both groups in addition to convening daily debriefs to receive updates from the field on any issues encountered. Data collection teams will work with community focal points to identify a time of the day when household members are most likely to be home to reduce the frequency of contact/revisits needed to complete the interviews. Data collection teams will be staffed to minimize the time teams spend in each community. COVID kits will be distributed to data collection teams at the start of field work. Temperature checks will be taken at the start of each day and anyone presenting with a fever will not be allowed to participate in the data collection and will replaced by back-up enumerators. 2.3.4 Quality Control Quality control of the PBS begins with an effective and comprehensive training followed by monitoring and oversight throughout data collection. TANGO will facilitate a virtual ToT. Local IP staff will provide training on program-specific information, including activity details, to the local firm (enumerators, team leads, and field coordinators).27 The training will cover required technical, logistical, and leadership aspects. This includes field coordinator, team lead, and enumerator roles and responsibilities, rules, behaviors, and ethics (including gender sensitivity), respondent selection, and use of field control sheets. This will be followed by mock interviews/role playing using the tablets and a one-day pilot test of the survey where the data collection teams will practice in detail the survey tool. With oversight by TANGO and the local independent survey monitors, Kimetrica will organize, manage, and implement the data collection activities for the BL survey. Kimetrica was selected based on prior experience conducting quantitative CAPI-based surveys, including FFP/FTF surveys in similar geographies. Kimetrica will be responsible for identifying and hiring competent enumerators and field coordinators, organizing, and leading the enumerator training, arranging data collection field logistics, overseeing, supervising, and providing quality control of data collection, management, and transmission of data from the field, and delivery of a final dataset to TANGO for analysis. TANGO will request Kimetrica prioritize the recruitment of enumerators who have prior experience with CAPI and experience conducting food, nutrition, and/or agriculture surveys. Based on input from the IPs, TANGO will strongly recommend that the local firm strive for a 50-50 female-male split in the recruitment of field team staff. 26 Team leads will maintain field completion forms and review enumerator’s assignment sheets. 27 Local IP staff will determine for themselves whether they wish to participate in-person in the main training or whether they wish to join remotely. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 17 During the period of data collection, the independent survey monitors and local firm field coordinators and team leads will utilize several data quality monitoring controls including observation, spot-check re-interviews and daily review of completed interviews (see Box 2). Quality monitoring controls will be adapted to mitigate against COVID-19 risks associated with in-person re-interviews and verification procedures. Team leads will review data from the enumerators’ mobile devices to ensure data quality prior to uploading specific data to the TANGO server. At the end of each day, team leads will collect all mobile devices from enumerators and review a subset of household interview records and questions that are collected that day – verifying enumerators are collecting accurate data. Survey monitors will accompany the data collection teams assigned to their county. Survey monitors will travel independently and will visit all six teams throughout the entire duration of data collection to ensure the understanding and proper practice of quality control procedures. Survey monitors will provide regular updates to TANGO on fieldwork progress, or any issues encountered. Local survey monitors will be hired based on substantial prior experience managing and implementing surveys in Kenya, preferably related to food security and nutrition, fluency in local languages, knowledge of the regions in which data collection will take place, and prior experience with CAPI surveys. TANGO will remotely monitor data consistency throughout the ongoing data collection process using data periodically downloaded from the cloud server and by reviewing field check tables. TANGO will review the data and provide feedback on data quality, survey progress, and highlight specific issues to be discussed with each field team. Kimetrica will develop field check tables to check for response rates, missing data, outliers, age displacement and value heaping. Feedback will be provided to each field team so that inconsistencies can be corrected. The CSPro dataset will be converted into a Stata (Version 15) database for data management and analysis. Validated data will be accumulated in the main Stata database. TANGO and Kimetrica will conduct daily debriefs with the independent survey monitors and field coordinators to troubleshoot issues with the instrument, CSPro programming or understanding of the survey protocols. Box 2. Quality Control Checks During Data Collection Observation: Observing at least 10 percent of interviews conducted by each enumerator with the heaviest observation happening at the beginning and toward the end of data collection when errors are the most likely to happen. Observation exercises will be conducted by Team Leads and Field Coordinators. Spot-check re-interviews: Conducting spot-check re-interviews of at least 15 percent of completed interviews. Spot-checks are done by returning to certain households and conducting a short partial re￾interview in which the Team Lead independently collects the household roster data, which in this survey, is most prone to fraud or error, and compares the results to the questionnaire completed by the enumerator. Daily de-briefs and review of completed interviews: At the end of each day, Team Leads will collect all mobile devices from enumerators. Upon receiving the tablets from the enumerators, the team leads will review, finalize, and then upload the forms to the TANGO cloud server through a secure transmission, per guidelines provided during the training. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 18 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 2.4 Data Processing and Analysis 2.4.1 Data entry programming and testing Electronic data capture devices or tablets will be used as part of data collection, complemented with CSPro software. The use of mobile devices and an electronic questionnaire improves data quality by allowing data validation rules and consistency checks to be integrated as part of data collection. Mobile devices reduce data entry burden as data are entered at the enumerator level and records are uploaded to a cloud server using the built-in internet connectivity of the devices. This will allow the data analysis team to frequently review data consistency and ensure the data are ready for analysis almost immediately after the completion of data collection for all sampled households. The CSPro application will be designed by Kimetrica based on the English-language version of the questionnaire incorporating skipping rules and other interview logic. To ensure the correct identification and selection of eligible household members, only the name(s) and line number(s) of eligible household members will appear on the tablet at the start of each module when the enumerator is prompted to select the respondent. Thus, the CSPro form will be designed to pull information collected from the household roster that will auto-fill the respondent selection items. Once the English version of the electronic form is tested and validated, the local language(s) translation will be added to the CSPro application.28 TANGO will test the data entry program for errors and functionality prior to the training. Tablets will be used during the ToT and enumerator training to ensure that data collection teams are adequately trained in the skip logic of the program and in translating into local languages. The survey tool and the data entry program will be tested during the one-day pilot. Modifications to the survey tool and data entry program will be made as needed to address any issues found during the pilot test. 2.4.2 Data transmission After reviewing completed interviews, the team leads will upload finalized data to the cloud server through a secure transmission. Data will be uploaded to the cloud server daily subject to connectivity, and once every three days at a minimum. 2.4.3 Data analysis TANGO will clean and analyze household survey data, using Stata data analysis and statistical software. Data from the four counties will be pooled and analyzed as one data set, with stratification by IP and county. Point estimates: Point estimates and variance estimations are derived using Taylor series expansion and consider the design effect associated with the complex sampling design; and 95 percent confidence intervals are provided for all indicators. Bivariate and Multivariate analyses: TANGO will conduct additional analyses to explore associations with key outcome indicators for a select number of indicators. All descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses will be determined following preliminary calculation of the indicators and presented to BHA for approval prior to the start of data analysis. Sampling weights: Separate weights are calculated for indicators and adjusted to compensate for household and individual non-response. 28 Given the complexity and length of the survey instrument, and based on prior experience, TANGO strongly recommends finalizing the questionnaire one-month in advance of the training to allow adequate time to test the program in-house before the start of training. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 19 Missing Data: Missing data points are not included in calculations for BHA and program-specific indicators (i.e., they are excluded from the denominator and numerator). “Don’t Know” responses are recoded to the null value and included in the denominator; i.e., “Yes”, “No” and “Don’t Know” responses are included in the denominator, but only “Yes” responses are counted in the numerator. 2.4.4 Final datasets TANGO will deliver final datasets following the completion of the data analysis and the vetting of results with stakeholders. Datasets will be submitted in .CSV, STATA, and SPSS formats. To ensure the anonymity of respondents, all personal identifying information will be removed from the datasets prior to their delivery to BHA. The final data files will include: ● Sampling frames and sampling weights for each county ● Raw data files generated from the CSPro data entry application ● Edit rules and programming specifications for each final dataset ● Codebook for the final dataset 3. QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS Due to a plethora of desk reviews and formative research conducted by the IPs, the BL study will use available secondary data, and when necessary, work directly with IP technical leads to provide further triangulation and explanation of unexpected quantitative results. Use of existing data reinforces the focus by USAID on use and dissemination of data and lessons learned across countries and within the IDEAL-supported food security and nutrition community of practice of IPs. TANGO will consult with BHA and the IPs to determine the secondary sources of qualitative data to be reviewed. 4. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMED CONSENT Ethical approval to conduct the BLS in Kenya will be obtained from the National Commission for Science, Technology, and Innovation (NACOSTI). TANGO will work with Kimetrica to obtain permission to access the study communities in each of the counties. The local firm will secure the permission of local/village authorities to enter the communities to conduct face-to-face interviews prior to beginning field work. The mission will be requested to provided official letters that will be carried by the local firm data collection teams. Enumerators will obtain verbal consent before each interview after explaining the objectives and purpose of the study and information safeguards. Module A of the household questionnaire describes the guidelines for requesting informed consent. TANGO has updated the consent statement to include COVID-19 risks. Annex 4 provides the introduction and consent statement that each enumerator will read prior to beginning the interview. The enumerator must certify that: (a) each eligible respondent 18 years and older has provided verbal consent to participate in the interview before being personally interviewed; (b) guardians (e.g., parents, grandparents) of minors under the age of 18 years have provided consent; and (c) respondents under the age of 18 years have provided assent to be interviewed, unless they are married or living alone which in this case only the consent of the respondent would be required. Enumerators will explain the risks associated with participating in a face-to-face interview in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents are informed that participation is voluntary and may choose IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 20 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol to decline to participate in the interview. Respondents may refuse to answer a question and request to move to the next question, and they may request to stop the interview at any time. Participation in the survey is expected to carry no direct costs, risks, or benefits. The survey is expected to take approximately three to four hours to complete. It is expected to carry a low burden on respondents since no single respondent will be interviewed for the entire questionnaire. Respondents will not incur transportation costs. The survey does not include invasive procedures. Respondents will not be compensated for participating in the study. 5. LIMITATIONS AND POTENTIAL CHALLENGES Limitations of the BL study design and potential challenges encountered during the BL study implementation are discussed below as well as contingency plans to address them as they arise. 5.1 Limitations of the study design Validity and Reliability of Self-Reported Data: Most of the data collected for the household survey are self-reported. Limitations of self-reported data include the potential for exaggeration or omission of information, inaccurate recall, social-desirability bias, or reporting of untruthful information, and reduced validity if respondents do not fully understand a question. Enumerators will be trained in techniques to help mitigate these types of measurement bias. Where possible, enumerators will use photos, such as photos of water containers and livestock body condition score charts, to improve data quality. Timing of the Survey: Data collection is scheduled to take place in October. However, measures of food security and dietary diversity could be impacted given that data collection spills into the period when maize availability increases in the country.29 Additionally, the timing of the survey overlaps with livestock migration to dry season grazing lands. This could create challenges for locating and interviewing livestock farmers. 5.2 Potential challenges and contingency plans Non-response: Respondents may be reluctant to participate in the survey due to general mistrust that may arise in politically volatile situations and due to fears of falling ill in the present context of the COVID-10 pandemic. The field teams will be trained to explain to respondents the objectives of the study and measures taken to preserve the anonymity of their responses. It is also possible that households may relocate or move due to the political situation. For this reason, the study design takes into consideration a higher than usual nonresponse factor of 20 percent. Security and travel risks and difficulties locating pastoral communities: Changes in COVID-19 conditions and the security situation may impact the ability of field teams to reach certain clusters. Additionally, it may be difficult to locate pastoral communities. To address these challenges, TANGO and the local firm will implement the following strategies: ● The household listing will be conducted shortly ahead of the start of data collection (see Section 7. Timeline) so that clusters that cannot be reached will be replaced by reserve clusters at that time. 29 The FEWS NET seasonal calendar for Kenya indicates that the hungry season in Northern and Eastern Kenya lasts until November, when maize availability from the rest of the country increases after the start of the long rains maize harvest in the Western and Rift Valley (October – February). Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 21 ● The local firm will contact local authorities in advance of fieldwork about the BL survey and secure permission to enter communities. The Mission will be requested to provide official letters that will be carried by the data collection teams. ● The local firm will communicate regularly with the local authorities as necessary, and prior to entering communities, to remain informed of local conditions and the security situation to minimize security risks to the data collection teams. ● Field teams operating in areas with restricted access will coordinate their movement with the local authorities. Clusters that are deemed dangerous to reach due to the security situation will be replaced by other clusters at that time. ● Field teams will be comprised of enumerators who reside in the counties in which data collection is slated to take place to minimize travel risks. ● TANGO will coordinate closely with the independent survey monitors and local firm field supervisors to monitor travel between different locations and obtain regular updates on local (COVID-19) conditions and the security situation. Field movement plans will be adjusted as needed ahead of any anticipated issues if possible. ● Kimetrica will develop the deployment plan at the cluster level in consultation with village chiefs and time visits when household members are at home, or if needed, arrange to meet farmers where they are currently located. Poor Connectivity: Poor or intermittent network connectivity may result in the need to extend the training period due to the need to reschedule make-up training sessions. Compact Schedule: The proposed timeline (see Section 7. Timeline) assumes ethical review and approvals can be completed within six weeks. However, this process can take up to two months.30 An Ethical Clearance Certificate must first be obtained from AMREF, one of the institutions delegated by the National Commission for Science, Technology, and Innovation (NACOSTI) to review applications and provide certification.31 Upon receipt of the Ethical Clearance Certificate, TANGO will apply to obtain a Research Permit from NACOSTI. TANGO will modify the training schedules as needed to maintain the proposed timeline to the extent possible. TANGO will coordinate closely with its independent survey monitors and the local firm field coordinators to ensure that fieldwork is progressing as planned and is completed on time. 6. DISSEMINATION OF FINDINGS TANGO will prepare one BL study report (approximately 50-60 pages) in English, in which results are stratified by IP and county. The report will be reviewed (two rounds of revisions) and finalized under BHA approval. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, TANGO’s current assumption is that BHA will host webinar briefings for Washington, DC and the field to present findings from the BL survey and the synthesis of findings from secondary qualitative data. 7. TIMELINE Table 6 illustrates the projected timeline for milestone activities for the BL study. Data collection was expected to start on August 30 and end on September 24. Under the revised timeline, data collection will begin on October 12 and end on November 1. The lag from the initial timeline is due to several 30 Prior to submitting the study protocol and instrument for review and certification, the instrument must first be translated in Kiswahili and the protocol and questionnaire must be formatted per requirements. 31 Examples of institutions tasked to review and provide certification are The African Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF) and the University of Nairobi/Kenyatta National Hospital ERC. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 22 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol factors: (1) delays in issuing Kimetrica’s contract, (2) the need for multiple rounds of discussions with BHA and IPs to finalize the questionnaire; (3) difficulty recruiting qualified listers in Northern Kenya; and (4) the need make revisions to the sampling approach to account for the mix of villages and sublocations. Although TANGO completed the firm selection on July 13, there were delays in determining whether BHA approval is needed prior to issuing a contract to the local data collection firm, given that the contractor’s bid exceeded the estimated budget for data collection. In the absence of a contract, the local data collection firm was unable to initiate the IRB approval process, which can take up to six weeks. In addition, although TANGO received comments on the protocol and questionnaire on July 15, multiple rounds of consultations and revisions with the IPs were needed to clarify and streamline the agriculture-related modules, particularly to achieve consensus on a set of clearly defined, measurable practices and to develop a module on camels, which is not part of the core BHA/FTF questionnaires.32 The need to clarify the geographies in Mercy Corp's sampling frame contributed to additional delays due to the need to revisit the sampling approach to account for the mix of villages and sublocations in one frame. Given the projected end-date for data collection, all subsequent tasks, including indicator calculation and report-writing have also shifted as illustrated in the table below. Table 6. BHA Nawiri RFSAs Baseline Study Timeline of Milestone Activities Activity Date Obtain list of commodities and targeted improved practices from IPs Obtain list of sublocations/villages from IPs June 18 Draft 1 of study protocol submitted to BHA for review June 30 Local data collection firm selected July 13 BHA/Partner comments on draft protocol received July 15 Kick-off conference call with local data collection firm List of sublocations/villages sent to Kimetrica to perform first stage sample selection with KNBS support July 27 Draft 2 of study protocol submitted to BHA August 18 Research protocol submitted to local ethics/IRB committee1 August 20 CSPro data entry template for Listing Exercise finalized and tested August 25 Questionnaire finalized August 20 Training manuals provided for BHA review and approval (one week review period) Team Lead Manual and Enumerators Question-by Question Manual August 30 Household Listing Manual September 1 CSPro data entry template for Baseline Survey finalized and tested September 24 Household listing training and operation in sampled EAs Data cleaning September 12 – September 23 September 24 – September 29 Training of Trainers (ToT) – five days September 24 – September 29 Field team training (main training) – seven days October 1 – October 7 32 Additional inputs on the questionnaire were received from the IPs on July 28, July 31, August 5, and August 19. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 23 Activity Date All required ethics approvals are obtained1 October 7 Pilot test of questionnaire and field protocols Pilot debrief and questionnaire/tablet adjustments (if needed) Logistics of fieldwork Updates to instrument/CS-PRO program October 8 Revised instruments and field movement plan provided for BHA approval (COB) October 9 BHA approval of post-pilot questionnaire (close of business) October 10 Start of field work October 12 End of fieldwork November 1 Receipt of clean datasets from local subcontractor November 5 Qualitative data analysis (synthesis of secondary data sources) November – December 2021 Preliminary indicator results(staggered schedule) Food security, WASH, MCHN November 22 Cut-off to receive all secondary sources of qualitative data to be reviewed November 30 Consumption Expenditures (poverty) and Resilience December 3 Agriculture January 14 Summary of topline findings – excluding agriculture results2 December 6 Draft baseline study report February 14 Comments on draft report received (two weeks turn-around) February 28 Briefing to IP field technical/M&E staff3 TBD Submission of final baseline study report4 March 31 BHA confirms final edits & approves (repeat as necessary) April 7 Submission of final datasets April 15 Final report (508 compliant and uploaded to DEC) TBD (Save the Children) BHA/Washington briefing TBD Learning events5 TBD NOTES: 1 The ethical review and approvals process includes obtaining approvals from AMREF and NACOSTI. This two-stage process can take up to two months but TANGO through its local partner will apply for an expedited review. 2 TANGO will submit indicator estimates with sampling statistics and a summary of topline findings. The topline findings will include bulleted lists that summarize the methodology and main findings under each topical area (e.g., food security, poverty, WASH, MCHN, etc.). This summary will focus on the indicator estimates and will not include additional analyses (i.e., descriptive, bivariate, or multivariate analyses), figures, or the synthesis of qualitative data. 3 The briefing is intended to review and discuss the results of the baseline study to validate and contextualize findings. A separate learning event focused on programming implications is planned for a later date. Based on TANGO’s most recent experience from the Burkina Faso and Niger baseline studies, it is more effective and efficient to review/discuss the results before engaging stakeholders in a learning event. This staggered approach allows stakeholders to reflect on the information before drawing conclusions on programming implications. 4 Assumes a turnaround of approximately five weeks from the receipt of comments on the first draft. 5 Objective and format of the learning event(s) to be determined in consultation with BHA. ovation (NACOSTI). TANGO will work with Kimetrica to obtain permission to access the study communities in each of the counties. The local firm will secure the permission of local/village authorities IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 24 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol to enter the communities to conduct face-to-face interviews prior to beginning field work. The mission will be requested to provided official letters that will be carried by the local firm data collection teams. Enumerators will obtain verbal consent before each interview after explaining the objectives and purpose of the study and information safeguards. Module A of the household questionnaire describes the guidelines for requesting informed consent. TANGO has updated the consent statement to include COVID-19 risks. Annex 4 provides the introduction and consent statement that each enumerator will read prior to beginning the interview. The enumerator must certify that: (a) each eligible respondent 18 years and older has provided verbal consent to participate in the interview before being personally interviewed; (b) guardians (e.g., parents, grandparents) of minors under the age of 18 years have provided consent; and (c) respondents under the age of 18 years have provided assent to be interviewed, unless they are married or living alone which in this case only the consent of the respondent would be required. Enumerators will explain the risks associated with participating in a face-to-face interview in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents are informed that participation is voluntary and may choose to decline to participate in the interview. Respondents may refuse to answer a question and request to move to the next question, and they may request to stop the interview at any time. Participation in the survey is expected to carry no direct costs, risks, or benefits. The survey is expected to take approximately three to four hours to complete. It is expected to carry a low burden on respondents since no single respondent will be interviewed for the entire questionnaire. Respondents will not incur transportation costs. The survey does not include invasive procedures. Respondents will not be compensated for participating in the study. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 25 ANNEX 1A: FIRST STAGE SAMPLE SELECTION GUIDANCE Background TANGO International in collaboration with Kimetrica is conducting a baseline (BL) survey of the United States Agency (USAID) Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) Resilience Food Security activities (RFSAs) in Kenya. The Nawiri RFSAs are being implemented by Catholic relief Services (CRS) in the counties of Isiolo, Marsabit and by Mercy Corps (MC) in the counties of Samburu and Turkana. Quantitative data collection for the baseline study includes a population-based household survey (PBS) conducted among a random sample representative of the entire population of households living in RFSA areas. The primary purpose of the PBS is to provide population-level estimates on standard BHA indicators. These indicators will serve as points of comparison for the endline survey. The results will be stratified by implementing partner (IP) and county so that they are representative of each county within the IP’s implementation area. Data collection for the BL study is scheduled to take place in September 2021 to overlap with the lean season. The BL survey will be conducted using face-to-face interviewing with COVID-19 mitigation procedures in place. Sampling Design and Size The BL survey sampling strategy uses a cross-sectional, multi-stage cluster design. In the first stage, clusters are randomly selected from each county in the IPs sampling frame using probability proportional to the size of the county (PPS). The sampling frame consists of sublocations/villages within the RFSA target areas, i.e., all sublocations/villages that are expected to receive the activity’s interventions.33 The minimum required sample is 1,000 households per county and 4,000 households in total. Table 1 illustrates the number of clusters and households included in the BL sampling frame. Table 7. Number of Clusters and Households Included in the BL Sampling Frames Number of clusters1 Number of Households Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Isiolo 34 1,000 Marsabit 34 1,000 Mercy Corps (MC) Samburu 34 1,000 Turkana 34 1,000 TOTAL 136 4,000 NOTES: 1 The number of clusters per county was determined based on an equal allocation of 30 households per cluster and the minimum required sample size of 1,000 households per county. The number of clusters = 1,000 / 30 = 33.3 which is rounded up to 34. 33 CRS provided a list of sublocations, and MC provided a list comprised of both villages and sublocations. The list of sublocations/villages represent areas the IPs intend to target with the understanding that the intervention areas may shift overtime depending on the results of the ongoing formative research, and that the intensity of the interventions may vary by area. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 26 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol Sample selection The sample for each county will be selected using multi-stage cluster sampling with two stages of sampling: 1) selection of clusters, and 2) selection of households. In the first stage, clusters are systematically selected from each county in each IP’s sampling frame using probability proportional to size (PPS). Census enumeration areas (EAs) will be used as clusters rather than villages because the boundaries of EAs are well-defined and easier to locate in contrast to the boundaries of a village. To mitigate against possible inaccessibility, a “random-generated reserve sample” will be drawn using a two-phase approach as stipulated in the Feed the Future Population-based Survey Sampling Guide. 34 This entails selecting the required 34 clusters for each county plus 25 percent reserve clusters (9) in case a cluster needs to be replaced to give a total of 43 EAs per county. At the first phase of the first stage of sample selection a total of 43 (34 plus 9 reserve) EAs are sampled using systematic PPS sampling. At the second phase of the first stage, 9 out of the 43 EAs are randomly subsampled using fractional interval systematic sampling35. The survey will be conducted in the 34 EAs that are not selected at the second phase. The nine reserve EAs selected in the second phase are numbered 1 through 9 in the order in which they were randomly sampled to define the sequence of their release. If only one reserve EA is needed, the reserve EA labeled “number 1” will replace the first EA from among the original 34 EAs that cannot be accessed. Inaccessible EAs are replaced with reserve EAs using this approach as needed to achieve the overall number of required EAs (34). For the CRS Nawiri RFSA areas, the first stage sample selection was based on a list of EAs that correspond to the sublocations provided by the partner. The first stage sample selection for the MC Nawiri RFSA areas was based on a list of EAs that correspond to the villages and sublocations MC plans to implement its interventions. Below are the instructions for first stage sample selection. 36 First Stage Sample Selection - CRS: Given that CRS provided a list of sublocations, the first stage sampling of EAs for the Isiolo and Marsabit counties was conducted in two phases: • Phase 1 - Selection of Sublocations: For each county (Isiolo and Marsabit) TANGO selected 43 sublocations using probability proportional to size (PPS). In some cases, a sublocation was selected more than once given its relative size. The list of selected sublocations, including the number of times the sublocation was selected, was provided to KNBS to perform Phase 2 of the first stage sample selection in the CRS Nawiri areas. • Phase 2 - Selection of EAs within the Selected Sublocations: KNBS selected EAs from the list of selected sublocations that TANGO provided. The EAs were selected using PPS. The number of EAs to be selected per sublocation equals the number of times the sublocation was selected in the first phase. Thus, the sampling weights for the first stage of probability of selection in the CRS Nawiri areas will include two probabilities of selection - i.e., the probability of the sublocation being selected and the probability of the EA(s) within the sampled sublocation being selected. 34 For additional details see: https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/FTF-PBS-Sampling%20Guide￾Apr2018.pdf. 35 See Section 8.1 in the FtF guidance available at https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/FTF￾PBS-Sampling%20Guide-Apr2018.pdf. 36 Section 5.3 on Systematic PPS Sampling in Feed the Future Population-based Survey Sampling Guide. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 27 First Stage Sample Selection – MC: The sampling frame for the Mercy Corps Nawiri areas is a mix of villages and sublocations, so the first stage sampling of EAs was conducted in one phase only. Because KNBS does not share village-level population estimates, the sampling selection was performed by KNBS with guidance from TANGO as described below: • KNBS listed all EAs that best correspond to the list of MC geographies. • From this stacked list of EAs, for each county (Samuburu and Turkana), KNBS selected 43 EAs using PPS. The sampling weights for the first stage of probability of selection in the Mercy Corps Nawiri areas will only include one probability of selection - i.e., the probability of the EA being selected from the full list of EAs that correspond to all of the geographies. Instructions for first stage sample selection per stratum (county) Step 1. Identify the EAs that correspond to all the sublocations/villages in the stratum (county) that are within the RFSA implementation area based on the list provided by TANGO.37 Step 2. Obtain the count of the number of households per EA and calculate the cumulative total number of households within the county that correspond to the RFSA implementation area. Step 3. Calculate a sampling interval by dividing the total number of households in the stratum (county) by the number of EAs that are to be selected. For example, if the total number of households in the stratum is 6,000 and the number of EAs to be selected is 43 (34 required + 9 reserve), the unrounded sampling interval is 7,000/43 = 162.8. Step 4. Generate a random start (rs) number that is less than the sampling interval calculated in step three. This can be performed in Microsoft Excel using the rand( ) function. Step 5. Select the first EA in the stratum (county) per the following FtF guidance: “identify the pair of consecutive EAs in the list for which the cumulative total corresponding to the first EA is less than the random start and for which the cumulative total corresponding to the second EA is greater than or equal to the random start. Choose the second EA in the pair.”38 Step 6. Select the second EA in the stratum by first computing the number (a2) that equals the sum of the random start number (identified in Step 4) and the sampling interval (calculated in Step 3) then follow the procedure outlined in Step 5 – namely, “identify the pair of consecutive EAs in the list for which the cumulative total corresponding to the first EA is less than a2 and for which the cumulative total corresponding to the second EA is greater than or equal to a2..” 39 Step 7. Select the third EA in the stratum by first computing the number (a3) that is equal to the sum of the random start number and twice the sampling interval then follow the procedure outlined in Step 5. Step 8. Continue to follow this procedure until the required number of EAs (37) is reached. Large EAs may be selected more than once, however this is unlikely since EAs are usually about the same size. In this case, the number of households to be selected from an EA that is selected more than once equals 30 (number of households to be sampled) multiplied by the number of times the EA was selected. 37 The boundaries of a village may not overlap perfectly with the boundaries of a EA. In some cases, a village may overlap with more than one EA. Also, the boundaries of a village can be smaller than the EA (i.e., one EA can be comprised of several villages). Please select the EA(s) that best overlap with the village. 38 See page 50, Section 5.3, Feed the Future Population-based Survey Sampling Guide. 39 Ibid. County District / Sub-county Ward Location Sub-location Village Livelihood Zone Notes 1 Turkana Turkana North Kaeris Kaeris Kanakurdio Kanakurudio Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 2 Turkana Turkana North Kaeris Kaeris Kaeris Kaeris Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 3 Turkana Turkana North Kaeris Kaeris Nadunga Nandunga Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 4 Turkana Turkana North Kaeris Kaeris Kangakipur and Milimatatu Kangakipur and Milimatatu Pastoral 5 Turkana Turkana North Lapur Yapakuno Kaaleng Kaalem Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 6 Turkana Turkana North Lapur Yapakuno Kaaleng Kakelae Pastoral Not found in KNBS records. 7 Turkana Turkana North Lake Zone Kataboi kataboi Kataboi Fisheries KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 8 Turkana Turkana North Lake Zone Kataboi Lomekui Lomekui Fisheries 9 Turkana Turkana North Lake Zone Kataboi Katiko Katiko Fisheries KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 10 Turkana Turkana North Lake Zone Ngisiger Nachukui Nachukui Fisheries 11 Turkana Turkana North Lake Zone Riokomor Kokuselei Kokuselei Fisheries KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 12 Turkana Turkana North Lake Zone Riokomor Riokomor Riokomor Fisheries KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 13 Turkana Turkana North Lake Zone Ngisiger Lowarengak Lowarengak Fisheries KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 14 Turkana Turkana North Lake Zone Todongonyang Kanamkuny Todonyang and Kanamkuny Fisheries 15 Turkana Turkana North Lake Zone Ngisiger Lowarengak Natooo Fisheries & Pastoral 16 Turkana Turkana North Lapur Lokitaung Nakalale Nakalale Fisheries & Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 17 Turkana Turkana North Lapur Lokitaung Kachoda Kachoda Fisheries & Pastoral 18 Turkana Turkana North Lapur Karebur Karebur Karebur Fisheries & Pastoral 19 Turkana Turkana North Lapur Karebur Nabulukok Nabulukok Fisheries & Pastoral 20 Turkana Turkana North Lapur Kokuro Kokuro Kokuro Fisheries & Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 21 Turkana Turkana North Lapur Kokuro Sasame and Liwan Sasame and Liwan Fisheries & Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 22 Turkana Turkana North Kaaleng/ Kalikor Kaikor Kaikor Loitanit Pastoral 23 Turkana Turkana North Kaaleng/ Kalikor Kaikor Kaikor Lokolio Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 24 Turkana Turkana North Kaaleng/ Kalikor Kaikor Loruth Kotome Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 25 Turkana Turkana North Kaaleng/ Kalikor Kaikor Loruth Karach II Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 26 Turkana Turkana North Kaaleng/ Kalikor Kaikor Kaikor Nalita Pastoral 27 Turkana Turkana North Kaaleng/ Kalikor Kaikor Loruth loruth Esekon Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 28 Turkana Turkana North Kibish kibish Natapar Karach I Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 29 Turkana Turkana North Kibish kibish Natapar Koyasa Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 30 Turkana Turkana North Kibish kibish Kibish Lokomarinyang Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 31 Turkana Turkana North Kibish kibish Kibish Kibish Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 32 Turkana Turkana North Kibish kibish Naita Naita Pastoral 33 Turkana Turkana North Kibish kibish Natapar Natapar Pastoral 34 Turkana Turkana North Kibish Kibish Natapar Kaitede Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 35 Turkana Turkana North Nakalale Nakalale Nakalale Nakalale Pastoral 36 Turkana Turkana North Nakalale Nakalale Kobuin Kobwin Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 37 Turkana Turkana North Nakalale Pelekech Lokore Lokore Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 38 Turkana Turkana North Nakalale Nakalale Losajait Losajait Pastoral 39 Turkana Turkana Central Kerio Delta Kang'irisae Kang’irisae Kang’irisae Agro-Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 40 Turkana Turkana Central Kerio Delta Kang'irisae Nakoret Nakoret Agro-Pastoral 41 Turkana Turkana Central Kerio Delta Lorengelup Lorengelup Lorengelup Agro-Pastoral 42 Turkana Turkana Central Kerio Delta Kerio Nakurio Nakurio Agro-Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 43 Turkana Turkana Central Kerio Delta Kerio Kerio Kerio Agro-Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 44 Turkana Turkana Central Kerio Delta Lorengelup Kakimat Kakimat Agro-Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 45 Turkana Turkana Central Kerio Delta Lorengelup Kang’agetei Kang’agetei Agro-Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 46 Turkana Turkana Central Kerio Delta Kerio Nadoto Nadoto Agro-Pastoral 47 Turkana Turkana Central Kangatotha Kangathotha Ille Ille Fisheries KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 48 Turkana Turkana Central Kangatotha Kangathotha Naoros Naoros Fisheries 49 Turkana Turkana Central Kangatotha Kangathotha Lomopus Lomopus Fisheries KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 2021 Baseline Study of the BHA RFSA in Kenya - Mercy Corps Sampling Frame IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 28 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol ANNEX 1B: SAMPLING FRAME BY IP AND COUNTRY County District / Sub-county Ward Location Sub-location Village Livelihood Zone Notes 2021 Baseline Study of the BHA RFSA in Kenya - Mercy Corps Sampling Frame 51 Turkana Turkana Central Kalokol Kalokol Kalokol Kalokol Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 52 Turkana Turkana Central Kalokol Kapua Kapua Kapua Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 53 Turkana Turkana Central Kalokol Namukuse Lochor Ekeny Lochor Ekeny Pastoral 54 Turkana Turkana Central Kalokol Namukuse Namukuse Namukuse Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 55 Turkana Turkana Central Lodwar Township Lodwar Lodwar Town Lodwar Town Urban 56 Turkana Turkana Central Lodwar Township Nakwamekwi Nakwamekwi Nakwamekwi Urban KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 57 Turkana Turkana Central Lodwar Township Lodwar Napetet Napetet Urban KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 58 Turkana Turkana Central Kanamkemer Kanamkemer Kanamkemer Kanamkemer Pastoral 59 Turkana Turkana Central Kanamkemer Kanamkemer Nawoitorong Nawoitorong Pastoral 60 Turkana Turkana West Letea Letea Tulabalany Tulabalany Pastoral 61 Turkana Turkana West Letea Letea Loritit Loritit Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 62 Turkana Turkana West Letea Loreng Loreng Loreng Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 63 Turkana Turkana West Songot Lorau Lokangae Lokangae Pastoral 64 Turkana Turkana West Songot Lorau Lotikipi Lotikipi Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 65 Turkana Turkana West Songot Songot Lopwarin Lopwarin Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 66 Turkana Turkana West Songot Songot Lokudule Lokudule Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 67 Turkana Loima Kotaruk/Lobei Kotaruk Kotaruk Kotaruk Agro-Pastoral 68 Turkana Loima Kotaruk/Lobei Kotaruk Naipa Naipa Agro-Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 69 Turkana Loima Kotaruk/Lobei Lokipetot-Arengan Lokipetot-Arengan Lokipetot-Arengan Agro-Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 70 Turkana Loima Kotaruk/Lobei Lorugum Kalemunyang Kalemunyang Agro-Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 71 Turkana Loima Kotaruk/Lobei Lobei Lobei Lobei Agro-Pastoral 72 Turkana Loima Turkwel Turkwel Turkwel Turkwel Pastoral 73 Turkana Loima Turkwel Nadapal Napeikar Napeikar Pastoral 74 Turkana Loima Turkwel Nadapal Tiya Tiya Pastoral 75 Turkana Loima Turkwel Lorugum Lorugum Lorugum Pastoral 76 Turkana Loima Turkwel Lomeyana Kapus Kapus Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 77 Turkana Loima Turkwel Nadapal Nadapal Nadapal Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 78 Turkana Loima Turkwel Nadapal Kawalathe Kawalathe Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 79 Turkana Loima Turkwel Nadapal Lomeyan Lomeyan Pastoral 80 Turkana Loima Turkwel Lomeyana Nachuro Nachuro Pastoral 81 Turkana Loima Loima Loima Puch Puch Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 82 Turkana Loima Loima Loima Namoruputh Namoruputh Pastoral 83 Turkana Loima Loima Loima Lochor-Ekuyen Lochor-Ekuyen Pastoral 84 Turkana Loima Loima Loima Lochor Edome Lochor Edome Pastoral 85 Turkana Loima Lokiriama/ Lorengippi Lokiriama Lokiriama Lokiriama Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 86 Turkana Loima Lokiriama/ Lorengippi Urum Lochor-Alomala Lochor-Alomala Pastoral 87 Turkana Loima Lokiriama/ Lorengippi Lokiriama Atalokamusio Atalokamusio Pastoral 88 Turkana Loima Lokiriama/ Lorengippi Lorengippi Lorengippi Lorengippi Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 89 Turkana Loima Lokiriama/ Lorengippi Lorengippi Kaemanik Kaemanik Pastoral 90 Turkana Loima Lokiriama/ Lorengippi Lorengippi Nakurio Nakurio Pastoral 91 Turkana Loima Lokiriama/ Lorengippi Lorengippi Lodwat Lodwat Pastoral 92 Turkana Loima Lokiriama/ Lorengippi Lorengippi Loya a Loya a Pastoral 93 Turkana Turkana South Kaputir Kaputir Kalomwae Kalomwae Agro-Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 94 Turkana Turkana South Kaputir Kaputir Nakwamoru Nakamoru Agro-Pastoral 95 Turkana Turkana South Kaputir Kaputir Lorogon Lorogon Agro-Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 96 Turkana Turkana South Katilu Katilu Katilu Katilu Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 97 Turkana Turkana South Katilu Katilu Lokapel Lokapel Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 98 Turkana Turkana South Katilu Katilu Kalemgorok Kalemgorok Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 99 Turkana Turkana South Katilu Katilu Kanaodon Kanaodon Pastoral Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 29 County District / Sub-county Ward Location Sub-location Village Livelihood Zone Notes 2021 Baseline Study of the BHA RFSA in Kenya - Mercy Corps Sampling Frame 100 Turkana Turkana South Lobokat Kainuk Kainuk Kainuk Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 101 Turkana Turkana South Lobokat Kainuk Kakongu Kakongu Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 102 Turkana Turkana South Lobokat Kainuk Kainuk Loyapat Pastoral Not found in KNBS records. 103 Turkana Turkana South Kalapata Kalapata Kalapata Kalapata Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 104 Turkana Turkana South Kalapata Kalapata Loperot Loperot Pastoral 105 Turkana Turkana South Kalapata Kalapata Nakaalei Nakaalei Pastoral 106 Turkana Turkana South Lokichar Lokichar Lokichar Lokichar Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 107 Turkana Turkana South Lokichar Lokichar Kapese Kapese Pastoral 108 Turkana Turkana South Lokichar Lochwaa Lochwaa Lochwangikamatak Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 109 Turkana Turkana South Lokichar Lochwaa Napusimoru Napusimoru Pastoral 110 Turkana Turkana East Katilia Katilia Elelea Elelea Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 111 Turkana Turkana East Katilia Katilia Paragati Paragati Pastoral 112 Turkana Turkana East Katilia Katilia Katilia Katilia Pastoral 113 Turkana Turkana East Lokori/ Kochodin Lokori Lokori Lokori Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 114 Turkana Turkana East Lokori/ Kochodin Lokori Kang’itit Kang’itit Pastoral 115 Turkana Turkana East Lokori/ Kochodin Lokori Lotubae Lotubae Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 116 Turkana Turkana East Lokori/ Kochodin Kochodin Lopii Lopii Pastoral 117 Turkana Turkana East Lokori/ Kochodin Kochodin Kochodin Kochodin Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 118 Turkana Turkana East Lokori/ Kochodin Lochakula Lokwamosing Lokwamosing Pastoral 119 Turkana Turkana East Lokori/ Kochodin Lochakula Kakulit Kakulit Pastoral 120 Turkana Turkana East Lokori/ Kochodin Lochakula Lochakula Lochakula Pastoral 121 Turkana Turkana East Katilia Katilia Elelea Elelea Agro-Pastoral + small pastoral DUPLICATE 122 Turkana Turkana East Katilia Katilia Paragati Paragati Agro-Pastoral + small pastoral DUPLICATE 123 Turkana Turkana East Katilia Katilia Katilia Katilia Agro-Pastoral + small pastoral DUPLICATE . Turkana Turkana Central Kalokol Kalokol Namadak Namadak Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 124 Samburu Samburu West Suguta Marmar Suguta Marmar Logorate Logorate Agro-Pastoral + small pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 125 Samburu Samburu West Suguta Marmar Suguta Marmar Suguta Marmar Suguta Marmar Agro-Pastoral + small pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 126 Samburu Samburu West Suguta Marmar Amaiya Longewan Longewan Agro-Pastoral + small pastoral 127 Samburu Samburu West Suguta Marmar Amaiya Amaiya Amaiya Agro-Pastoral + small pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 128 Samburu Samburu West Suguta Marmar Suguta Marmar Suguta Nasur Agro-Pastoral + small pastoral Not found in KNBS records. 129 Samburu Samburu West Suguta Marmar Suguta Marmar Lolmolog Lolmolog Agro-Pastoral + small pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 130 Samburu Samburu West Maralal Maralal Maralal Maralal Town Urban + Agro-pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 131 Samburu Samburu West Maralal Maralal-urban Shabaa Lkoroto, Shabaa Urban + Agro-pastoral 132 Samburu Samburu West Maralal Maralal-urban Shabaa Shabaa Urban + Agro-pastoral 133 Samburu Samburu West Maralal Maralal-town Maralal Maralal Town Urban + Agro-pastoral DUPLICATE 134 Samburu Samburu West Maralal Maralal-urban Shabaa Lkoroto Urban + Agro-pastoral 135 Samburu Samburu West Maralal Maralal-urban Shabaa Shabaa Urban + Agro-pastoral DUPLICATE 136 Samburu Samburu West Maralal Maralal-urban Ng’ari Ng’ari Urban + Agro-pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 137 Samburu Samburu West Maralal Maralal Ledero Ledero Urban + Agro-pastoral 138 Samburu Samburu West Maralal Maralal-urban Milimani Milimani Urban + Agro-pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 139 Samburu Samburu West Maralal Maralal-town Lpartuk Lpartuk Urban + Agro-pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 140 Samburu Samburu West Porro Porro Siambu Siambu Agro-pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 141 Samburu Samburu West Porro Porro Seketet Seketet Agro-pastoral 142 Samburu Samburu West Porro Porro Mugur Mugur Agro-pastoral 143 Samburu Samburu West Porro Porro Lporowuai Lporowuai Agro-pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 144 Samburu Samburu West Porro Porro Mugur Lemisigiyo Agro-pastoral 145 Samburu Samburu West Porro Sirata Oirobi Sirata Oirobi Sirata Oirobi Agro-pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 146 Samburu Samburu West Porro Lodongojek Kisima Nauneri Agro-pastoral 147 Samburu Samburu West Porro sirata oirobi Ngejumuny Ngejumuny Agro-pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 30 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol County District / Sub-county Ward Location Sub-location Village Livelihood Zone Notes 2021 Baseline Study of the BHA RFSA in Kenya - Mercy Corps Sampling Frame 148 Samburu Samburu North El Barta Baragoi Bendera Bendera Pastoral 149 Samburu Samburu North El Barta Baragoi Nachola Naling’ango’or Pastoral Not found in KNBS records. 150 Samburu Samburu North El Barta Baragoi Baragoi Baragoi Town Pastoral 151 Samburu Samburu North El Barta Waso rongai Simale Ngilai Pastoral Not found in KNBS records. 152 Samburu Samburu North El Barta Marti kalele Marti Pastoral Not found in KNBS records. 153 Samburu Samburu North El Barta Suyna Suyan Suyan Pastoral 154 Samburu Samburu North El Barta El Barta Maskita Maskita Pastoral 155 Samburu Samburu North Nachola Nachola Nachola Nachola Pastoral 156 Samburu Samburu North Nachola Nachola Nakuparat Nakuparat Pastoral 157 Samburu Samburu North Nachola Nachola Terter Terter Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 158 Samburu Samburu North Nachola Kawop Lonyangaten Lonyangaten Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 159 Samburu Samburu North Nachola Marti Kalele Kalele Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 160 Samburu Samburu North Nachola Marti Lokorkor Lokorkor Pastoral 161 Samburu Samburu North Nachola Marti Muru akiring Emuru-Akiring Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 162 Samburu Samburu North Ndoto Ndoto Lesirikan Lesirikan Pastoral 163 Samburu Samburu North Ndoto Ndoto Lodua Lodua Pastoral 164 Samburu Samburu North Ndoto Arsim Arsim Arsim Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 165 Samburu Samburu North Ndoto Arsim Illarut Illarut Pastoral 166 Samburu Samburu North Ndoto Latakweny Loikumkum Loikumkum Pastoral 167 Samburu Samburu North Ndoto Arsim Nguronit Nguronit Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 168 Samburu Samburu North Ndoto Latakweny Latakweny Latakweny Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 169 Samburu Samburu North Ndoto Ndoto Seren Seren Pastoral 170 Samburu Samburu North Nyiro Loruko Loruko Lkotikal Pastoral 171 Samburu Samburu North Nyiro Uaso Rongai Uaso Rongai Uaso Rongai Pastoral 172 Samburu Samburu North Nyiro Simale Simale Simale Pastoral 173 Samburu Samburu North Nyiro South Horr South Horr South Horr Pastoral 174 Samburu Samburu North Nyiro Tuum Tuum Tuum Pastoral 175 Samburu Samburu North Nyiro Parkati Parkati Parkati Pastoral 176 Samburu Samburu North Nyiro Tuum Tuum Ijuk Pastoral Not found in KNBS records. 177 Samburu Samburu North Nyiro Loonjorin Loonjorin Loonjorin Pastoral 178 Samburu Samburu North Nyiro Parkati Lkayo Lkayo Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 179 Samburu Samburu North Nyiro Tuum Lusurkoi Lusurkoi Pastoral 180 Samburu Samburu North Nyiro Kawap Kawap Nakweny Pastoral 181 Samburu Samburu North Angata/ Nanyuikie Barsaloi Lulu Lulu Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 182 Samburu Samburu North Angata/ Nanyuikie Angata/ Nanyuikie Morijo Morijo Pastoral 183 Samburu Samburu North Angata/ Nanyuikie Angata/ Nanyuikie Morijo Soit Naibor Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 184 Samburu Samburu North Angata/ Nanyuikie Barsaloi Barsaloi Barsaloi Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 184 Samburu Samburu North Angata/ Nanyuikie Barsaloi Barsaloi Barsaloi Pastoral DUPLICATE 185 Samburu Samburu North Angata/ Nanyuikie Angata/ Nanyuikie Loibashai Loibashai Pastoral 186 Samburu Samburu North Angata/ Nanyuikie Angata Nyokie Angata Nyokie Angata Nyokie Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 187 Samburu Samburu North Angata/ Nanyuikie Barsaloi Lulu Lulu Pastoral DUPLICATE 188 Samburu Samburu North Angata/ Nanyuikie Angata/ Nanyuikie Morijo Morijo Pastoral 189 Samburu Samburu North Angata/ Nanyuikie Angata/ Nanyuikie Morijo Soit Naibor Pastoral DUPLICATE 191 Samburu Samburu North Angata/ Nanyuikie Angata/ Nanyuikie Loibashai Loibashai Pastoral DUPLICATE 192 Samburu Samburu North Angata/ Nanyuikie Angata/ Nanyuikie Morijo Angata Nyokie Pastoral 193 Samburu Samburu North Baawa Mbukoi Moru Moru Pastoral 194 Samburu Samburu North Baawa Baawa Baawa Baawa Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 195 Samburu Samburu North Baawa Lbukoi Lbukoi Lbukoi Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 196 Samburu Samburu North Baawa Opiroi Mabati Mabati Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 31 County District / Sub-county Ward Location Sub-location Village Livelihood Zone Notes 2021 Baseline Study of the BHA RFSA in Kenya - Mercy Corps Sampling Frame 197 Samburu Samburu North Baawa Opiroi Opiroi Opiroi Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 198 Samburu Samburu North Baawa Opiroi Lorrok-Iolmong’o Lorrok-Iolmong’o Pastoral 199 Samburu Samburu North Baawa lodokejek Nonkeek Nonkeek Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 200 Samburu Samburu East Waso Waso East Archer’s Post Archer’s Post Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 201 Samburu Samburu East Waso Waso East Lerata Lerata Pastoral 202 Samburu Samburu East Waso Waso East Losesia Losesia Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 203 Samburu Samburu East Waso Sere-Olipi Sere-Olipi Sere-Olipi Pastoral 204 Samburu Samburu East Waso Ndonyo Wasin Ndonyo Wasin Ndonyo Pastoral 205 Samburu Samburu East Waso Ndonyo Wasin Ndonyo Wasin Wuasin Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 206 Samburu Samburu East Waso Waso West Lengusaka Lengusaka Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 207 Samburu Samburu East Waso Waso East Laresoro Laresoro Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 208 Samburu Samburu East Wamba West Waso West Lpus Leluai Lpus Leluai Pastoral 209 Samburu Samburu East Wamba West Waso West Ngutuk Ong’iron Ngutuk Ong’iron Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 210 Samburu Samburu East Wamba West Waso West Remot Remot Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 211 Samburu Samburu East Wamba West Waso East Sesia Sesia Pastoral 212 Samburu Samburu East Wamba West Lodungokwe Lengei Lengei Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 213 Samburu Samburu East Wamba West Lodungokwe Ltrimin Ltrimin Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 214 Samburu Samburu East Wamba West Lodungokwe Lpus Lpus Pastoral 215 Samburu Samburu East Wamba West NKaroni Lkisin Nkaroni Pastoral 216 Samburu Samburu East Wamba West NKaroni Resim Resim Pastoral 217 Samburu Samburu East Wamba West NKaroni Silango Nayokie Silango Nayokie Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 218 Samburu Samburu East Wamba East Koiting Lpashe Lpashe Pastoral KNBS reports this geography is a sublocation rather than a village. 219 Samburu Samburu East Wamba East Koiting Koiting Koiting Pastoral 220 Samburu Samburu East Wamba East Wamba Wamba Wamba Pastoral 221 Samburu Samburu East Wamba East Wamba Matakwani Matakwani Pastoral IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 32 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol County Sub-county Division Ward Location Sub Location Livelihood Zone 1 Isiolo Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatulla Boji Boji Pastoral 2 Isiolo Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatulla Boji Tanna Pastoral 3 Isiolo Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatulla Eskot Eskot Pastoral 4 Isiolo Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatulla Gafarsa Belgesh Pastoral 5 Isiolo Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatulla Gafarsa Gafarsa Agro-Pastoral 6 Isiolo Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatula South Peri-urban/petty trade, Pastoral 7 Isiolo Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatulla North Peri- urban/petty trade, Pastoral 8 Isiolo Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatulla Kombola Kombola Agro-Pastoral 9 Isiolo Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatulla Malkadaka Malkadaka Agro-Pastoral 10 Isiolo Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatulla Malkadaka Kuroftu Mollu Agro-Pastoral 11 Isiolo Garbatulla Garbatulla Garbatulla Muchuro Muchuro Agro-Pastoral 12 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Badana Badana Pastoral 13 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Badana Harr Adhi Pastoral 14 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Eldera Eldera Pastoral 15 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Eldera Quri Pastoral 16 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Iresa Boru Iresa Boru Agro-Pastoral 17 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Iresa Boru Forosa Pastoral 18 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Iresa Boru Mogore Agro-Pastoral 19 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Komor-Bulla Komor-Bulla Pastoral 20 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Komor-Bulla Modogashe North Peri-urban/petty trade, Pastoral 21 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Modogashe Burquqe Pastoral 22 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Modogashe Modogashe South Peri-urban/petty trade, Pastoral 23 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Sericho Sericho Pastoral 24 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Sericho Gubatu Pastoral 25 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Sericho Qone Pastoral 26 Isiolo Garbatulla Sericho Sericho Sericho Biliki Pastoral 27 Isiolo Isiolo Ngaremara Ngaremara Attan Attan Agro-Pastoral 28 Isiolo Isiolo Ngaremara Ngaremara Gotu Gotu Pastoral 29 Isiolo Isiolo Ngaremara Ngaremara Gotu Boji Dera Pastoral 30 Isiolo Isiolo Ngaremara Ngaremara Nakuprat Nakuprat Pastoral 2021 Baseline Study of the BHA RFSA in Kenya - CRS Sampling Frame Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 33 County Sub-county Division Ward Location Sub Location Livelihood Zone 2021 Baseline Study of the BHA RFSA in Kenya - CRS Sampling Frame 31 Isiolo Isiolo Ngaremara Ngaremara Ngaremara Ngaremara Peri-urban, Pastoral 32 Isiolo Isiolo Ngaremara Ngaremara Ngaremara Manyatta Zebra Peri-urban, Pastoral 33 Isiolo Isiolo Ngaremara Ngaremara Attan Aregae Agro-Pastoral 34 Isiolo Isiolo Central Bullapesa Central Central Peri-urban 35 Isiolo Isiolo Central Bullapesa Central Bullapesa Peri-urban 36 Isiolo Isiolo Oldonyiro Oldonyiro Kipsing Kipsing Pastoral 37 Isiolo Isiolo Oldonyiro Oldonyiro Lenguruma Lenguruma Pastoral 38 Isiolo Isiolo Oldonyiro Oldonyiro Longopito Longopito Pastoral 39 Isiolo Isiolo Oldonyiro Oldonyiro Longopito Tuale Pastoral 40 Isiolo Isiolo Oldonyiro Oldonyiro Oldonyiro Oldonyiro Peri-urban, Pastoral 41 Isiolo Isiolo Oldonyiro Oldonyiro Oldonyiro Rumate Pastoral 42 Isiolo Merti Cherab Cherab Dadacha Basa Dadacha Basa Pastoral 43 Isiolo Merti Cherab Cherab Dadacha Basa Alango Pastoral 44 Isiolo Merti Cherab Cherab Korbesa Korbesa Pastoral 45 Isiolo Merti Cherab Cherab Korbesa Biliqi Pastoral 46 Isiolo Merti Cherab Cherab Korbesa Saleti Pastoral 47 Isiolo Merti Cherab Cherab Malka Galla Malka Galla Pastoral 48 Isiolo Merti Cherab Cherab Malka Galla Dadacha Lafe Pastoral 49 Isiolo Merti Cherab Cherab Mata Arba Mata Arba Pastoral 50 Isiolo Merti Cherab Cherab Mata Arba Bulto Bonsa Pastoral 51 Isiolo Merti Cherab Cherab Yamicha Yamicha Pastoral 52 Isiolo Merti Cherab Cherab Yamicha Urura Pastoral 53 Isiolo Merti Cherab Cherab Yamicha Duma Pastoral 54 Isiolo Merti Merti Cherab Merti North Merti North Peri-urban, Agro pastoral 55 Isiolo Merti Merti Cherab Merti North Lakole Pastoral 56 Isiolo Merti Kom Chari Bisan Biliqo Bisan Biliqo Pastoral 57 Isiolo Merti Kom Chari Bulesa Bulesa Agro-Pastoral 58 Isiolo Merti Kom Chari Bulesa Awarsitu Agro-Pastoral 59 Isiolo Merti Kom Chari Bulesa Goda Pastoral 60 Isiolo Merti Merti Chari Merti South Merti South Peri-urban, Agro pastoral IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 34 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol County Sub-county Division Ward Location Sub Location Livelihood Zone 2021 Baseline Study of the BHA RFSA in Kenya - CRS Sampling Frame 61 Isiolo Merti Merti Chari Merti South Godarupa Pastoral 1 Marsabit North Horr North Horr North Horr North Horr North Hoor Pastoral+Petty Trading 2 Marsabit North Horr North Horr North Horr North Horr Darade Pastoral 3 Marsabit North Horr North Horr North Horr North Horr Qorqa Pastoral 4 Marsabit North Horr North Horr North Horr North Horr Elbesso Pastoral 5 Marsabit North Horr North Horr North Horr Galas Galas Pastoral 6 Marsabit North Horr North Horr North Horr Galas Charigolo Pastoral 7 Marsabit North Horr North Horr North Horr Malabot Malabot Pastoral 8 Marsabit North Horr Illeret Illeret Illeret Illeret Pastoral 9 Marsabit North Horr Illeret Illeret Illeret Telesgaye Pastoral 10 Marsabit North Horr Dukana Dukana Dukana Dukana Pastoral+Petty Trading 11 Marsabit North Horr Dukana Dukana Dukana Garwole Pastoral 12 Marsabit North Horr Dukana Dukana Balesa Saru Bales-Saru Pastoral 13 Marsabit North Horr Dukana Dukana Balesa Saru Sabarei Pastoral 14 Marsabit North Horr Dukana Dukana Balesa Saru Buluk Pastoral 15 Marsabit North Horr Dukana Dukana El-Hadi El-Hadi Pastoral 16 Marsabit North Horr Dukana Dukana El-Hadi Marime Pastoral 17 Marsabit North Horr Dukana Dukana Balesa Balesa/Sabalei Pastoral 18 Marsabit North Horr Dukana Dukana Balesa Buluk Pastoral 19 Marsabit Marsabit North Maikona Maikona Maikona Maikona Pastoral+Petty Trading 20 Marsabit Marsabit North Maikona Maikona Maikona Arano Pastoral 21 Marsabit Marsabit North Maikona Maikona Maikona Medate Kuro Pastoral 22 Marsabit Marsabit North Kalacha Maikona Hurri-Hills Hurri-Hills Pastoral 23 Marsabit Marsabit North Kalacha Maikona Hurri-Hills Burarat Pastoral 24 Marsabit Marsabit North Kalacha Maikona Forole Forole Pastoral 25 Marsabit Marsabit North Kalacha Maikona Kalacha Kalacha Pastoral+Petty Trading 26 Marsabit Marsabit North Kalacha Maikona Kalacha Hilleri/Takka Pastoral 27 Marsabit Marsabit North Kalacha Maikona Elgade Rage/Kutur Pastoral Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 35 County Sub-county Division Ward Location Sub Location Livelihood Zone 2021 Baseline Study of the BHA RFSA in Kenya - CRS Sampling Frame 28 Marsabit Marsabit North Turbi Turbi Turbi Turbi Pastoral+Petty Trading 29 Marsabit Marsabit North Turbi Turbi Turbi Demo Pastoral 30 Marsabit Marsabit North Turbi Turbi Burgabo Tigo Pastoral 31 Marsabit Marsabit North Turbi Turbi Burgabo Burgabo Pastoral 32 Marsabit Marsabit North Turbi Turbi Bubisa Horronderi Pastoral 33 Marsabit Marsabit North Turbi Turbi Bubisa Bubisa Pastoral 34 Marsabit Marsabit North Turbi Turbi Shurr Hawaye Pastoral 35 Marsabit Marsabit North Turbi Turbi Shurr Shurr Pastoral 36 Marsabit Marsabit South Laisamis Laisamis Laisamis Laisamis Pastoral/Petty trading 37 Marsabit Marsabit South Laisamis Laisamis Laisamis Nairibi Pastoral 38 Marsabit Marsabit South Laisamis Laisamis Laisamis Salabani Pastoral 39 Marsabit Marsabit South Laisamis Laisamis Merille Merille Pastoral/Petty trading 40 Marsabit Marsabit South Laisamis Laisamis Merille Irrir Pastoral 41 Marsabit Marsabit South Laisamis Laisamis Lontolio Lontolio Pastoral/petty trading 42 Marsabit Marsabit South Laisamis Laisamis Lontolio Ndigir pastoral 43 Marsabit Marsabit South Laisamis Laisamis Lontolio Losidan Pastoral 44 Marsabit Marsabit South Laisamis Laisamis Koya Koya Pastoral 45 Marsabit Marsabit South Laisamis Laisamis Koya Sakardalla Pastoral 46 Marsabit Marsabit South Loglogo Loglogo Loglogo Loglogo Pastoral/agro-pastoral 47 Marsabit Marsabit South Loglogo Loglogo Loglogo Gudas /Soriadi Pastoral 48 Marsabit Marsabit South Loglogo Loglogo Loglogo Lolkileleng'i Pastoral 49 Marsabit Marsabit South Loglogo Loglogo Loglogo Lbarok Pastoral 50 Marsabit Marsabit South Loglogo Loglogo Kamboe Kamboe Pastoral/agro-pastoral/petty trading 51 Marsabit Marsabit South Korr/Ngurunit Korr/Ngurunit Korr Korr Pastoral/petty trading 52 Marsabit Marsabit South Korr/Ngurunit Korr/Ngurunit Korr Orotiilkes Pastoral 53 Marsabit Marsabit South Korr/Ngurunit Korr/Ngurunit Korr Alisurwa Pastoral 54 Marsabit Marsabit South Korr/Ngurunit Korr/Ngurunit Illaut Illaut Pastoral 55 Marsabit Marsabit South Korr/Ngurunit Korr/Ngurunit Ngurunit Ngurunit Pastoral/petty trading 56 Marsabit Marsabit South Korr/Ngurunit Korr/Ngurunit Ngurunit Mpagas pastoral 57 Marsabit Marsabit South Korr/Ngurunit Korr/Ngurunit Ngurunit Lonyoripechau/Namarei Pastoral IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 36 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol County Sub-county Division Ward Location Sub Location Livelihood Zone 2021 Baseline Study of the BHA RFSA in Kenya - CRS Sampling Frame 58 Marsabit Marsabit South Korr/Ngurunit Korr/Ngurunit Balla Balla Pastoral 59 Marsabit Marsabit South Korr/Ngurunit Korr/Ngurunit Balla HAfare Pastoral 60 Marsabit Marsabit South Korr/Ngurunit Korr/Ngurunit Ngurunit Lapendera Pastoral 61 Marsabit Marsabit South Korr/Ngurunit Korr/Ngurunit illaut Farakoren Pastoral 62 Marsabit Loiyangalani Loiyangalani Loiyangalani/Gatab Loiyangalani Loiyangalani Pastoral/Fisher folk/Petty trading 63 Marsabit Loiyangalani Loiyangalani Loiyangalani/Gatab Loiyangalani Gas Pastoral 64 Marsabit Loiyangalani Loiyangalani Loiyangalani/Gatab Loiyangalani El-molo Fisherfolk 65 Marsabit Loiyangalani Loiyangalani Loiyangalani/Gatab Loiyangalani Moite Pastoral/Fisher folk 66 Marsabit Loiyangalani Loiyangalani Loiyangalani/Gatab Mt. Kulal Gatab Pastoral/agro-pastoral 67 Marsabit Loiyangalani Loiyangalani Loiyangalani/Gatab Mt. Kulal Larachi Pastoral 68 Marsabit Loiyangalani Loiyangalani Loiyangalani/Gatab Mt. Kulal Arapal Pastoral 69 Marsabit Loiyangalani Loiyangalani Loiyangalani/Gatab Mt. Kulal Olotorot Pastoral 70 Marsabit Loiyangalani Loiyangalani Loiyangalani/Gatab Mt. Kulal Sarima Pastoral 71 Marsabit Loiyangalani Kargi/South Horr Kargi/South Horr Kargi Kargi Pastoral/petty trading 72 Marsabit Loiyangalani Kargi/South Horr Kargi/South Horr Kargi Kambinye Pastoral 73 Marsabit Loiyangalani Kargi/South Horr Kargi/South Horr South Horr South Horr Pastoral/Agro-pastoral 74 Marsabit Loiyangalani Kargi/South Horr Kargi/South Horr South Horr Arge Pastoral 75 Marsabit Loiyangalani Kargi/South Horr Kargi/South Horr South Horr Kurungu Pastoral/Agro-pastoral 76 Marsabit Loiyangalani Kargi/South Horr Kargi/South Horr South Horr Kurkum Pastoral Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 37 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 38 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol ANNEX 2. LIST OF TARGETED COMMODITIES AND IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES This annex provides the list of value chain commodities and improved agricultural management practices and technologies that the implementing partners (IP) plan to target in their respective Resilience Food Security Activity (RFSA) areas.40 IPs provided detailed descriptions including examples that enumerators can draw on to probe for and elicit better responses from respondents. Detailed descriptions will be entered into the training manual. In addition, agriculture experts from each of the IPs will be invited to the training to review these practices with participants to ensure a thorough understanding. Table 1. Targeted value chain commodities in the BHA RFSAs in Kenya Commodity IP CRS MC Crops Cowpeas X Orange fleshed sweet potatoes X Green Grams X X Sorghum X Livestock Camels X X Cattle X X Goats X X Table 2. Targeted improved livestock management practices in the BHA RFSAs in Kenya Practice (G19A, G19B, G19C) IP Description CRS MC Use of improved livestock breeds/species Camels; Cattle; Goats Cattle; Goats Process of choosing animals that meet the requirements of the breeding objective and will pass particular traits onto their progeny, e.g., animals that improve both milk and meat production. Promoted breeds include dual-purpose breed varieties developed by KALRO such as the Galla goat, and drought-adapted livestock breeds such as the Somali camel, dairy goats, and Sahiwal and boron cows. Breeding using improved bulls. Use of livestock health services and products Camels; Cattle; Goats Cattle; Goats Use or consultations with public or licensed private animal health service providers for veterinary services such as prevention/treatment of livestock disease production, artificial insemination, etc. Use of improved shelters Camels; Cattle; Goats Camels; Cattle; Goats Construction of cages, sheds, or pens (enclosures for holding livestock) using local material to house livestock. The shelter be airy and waterproof. The place should also be lit to facilitate the consumption of food for a long time. 40 The corresponding questionnaire item number for each practice is listed in parentheses. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 39 Practice (G19A, G19B, G19C) IP Description CRS MC Use of improved calving techniques Camels; Cattle; Goats Camels; Cattle; Goats Promotion of colostrum intake for the newborn calf to enhance calf’s immune system: -The calf must rely on colostrum from the cow until its own immune system is totally functional (about 1 to 2 months of age). Promote general management such as keeping of clean, dry area for cows that are calving to limit the spread of disease in the newborn calves- (Calves born in muddy, damp pens or calves that nurse udders contaminated with fecal materials are at increased risk for a number of disease conditions). Use of improved milking techniques Camels; Cattle; Goats Camels; Cattle; Goats Use of food grade containers, udder and teat cleaning using clean water before milking, treatment of wounds, adoption of personal hygiene practices prior to and during milking. Use of more nutritious pasture varieties Camels; Cattle; Goats Camels; Cattle; Goats Use of more nutritious pasture varieties. Utilization of set grazing areas Camels; Cattle; Goats Cattle; Goats Development of grazing plans, setting aside grazing lands for dry season, enforcing grazing plans. Improved fodder production Camels; Cattle; Goats Cattle; Goats Fodder production refers to the exercise of deliberately planting certain types of grasses in pastures to improve the quality and quantity of natural grasslands, e.g., use of legumes or oilseeds to produce fodder, or veld reinforcement by planting legumes, grasses, or oilseeds to increase the nitrogen content of the soil. Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species Cattle; Goats Facilitate range land rehabilitation through the use of drought￾resistant grass seeds and the use of seed broadcasting techniques on degraded lands. Fencing off pasture plots Camels; Cattle; Goats Camels; Cattle; Goats Establishment of pasture plots by digging holes and fencing plots with poles and barbed wire to conserve pasture. Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands Camels; Cattle; Goats Camels; Cattle; Goats Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands through the construction of soil and water conservation structures and fencing degraded lands from grazing by livestock Use of solarized boreholes for livestock Camels; Cattle; Goats Camels; Cattle; Goats Using solar technology as a source of power to pump water from the water hole and for onward distribution for livestock Use of water pans for livestock Camels; Cattle; Goats Camels; Cattle; Goats Water pans are ponds / holes excavated on the ground surface to collect and store runoff water from various surfaces including from hillsides, roads, rocky areas, and open rangelands. Water harvesting in ASALs is an important practice to ensure water availability during the dry season. Collection of surface runoff water helps to control soil erosion. Use of sand dams for livestock Camels; Cattle; Goats Camels; Cattle; Goats A sand dam is a reinforced stone masonry wall built across a seasonal sandy river. Water trapped behind the wall raises the water table in the surrounding area. Water is stored under the sand and is used during the dry spells. Sand dam improves the soil, creating better conditions for crops and grazing. More trees can be planted ensuring more water infiltrates the IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 40 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol Practice (G19A, G19B, G19C) IP Description CRS MC ground, and less soil is washed away. This creates a virtuous cycle of soil and water conservation. Use of rock catchments for livestock Camels; Cattle; Goats Table 3. Targeted improved crop management practices in the BHA RFSAs in Kenya – ALL CROPS Practice IP Description CRS MC Crop genetics (G14A, G14B, G14C, G14D) Improved/certified seed X X Use of improved/certified seeds that are high-yielding, higher in nutritional content, drought tolerant (i.e., through bio-fortification, such as vitamin A-rich sweet potatoes, \, high-protein beans and pulses and cowpeas), and/or more resilient to climate impacts (i.e., drought tolerant pulses and beans). Cultural practices (G14A, G14B, G14C, G14D) Seedling production and transplantation X X Production of drought-tolerant seedlings for grains, pulses, sweet potato, and pasture. Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) X X Involves changing the type of crop that is grown on a piece of land, including farrowing, in order to maintain soil fertility and/or break pest and disease cycles. This involves rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes such as beans, soybeans, and groundnuts. Kitchen gardens using sunken pits X X Use of sunken water harvesting vegetable beds and pitting to control water loss through evaporation and spoilage. Pest and disease management (G14A, G14B, G14C, G14D) See list of improved post-harvest handling and storage practices promoted by the RFSAs. Soil-related fertility and conservation (G14A, G14B, G14C, G14D) Use of organic manure X X Use of manure for fertilization of soil. Organic manure typically refers to cow dung, chicken droppings, goat or sheep droppings or any other waste produced by domesticated animals. Soil testing X X Testing soil for pH, phosphorus, and potassium. Inoculant X Inoculant application in legumes/ pulses to improve productivity Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) X X Construction of gabions and rock terraces to conserve soil and prevent erosion Use of natural barriers/cover crops X X Use of grass strips and cover crops to conserve soil and prevent erosion Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues X X Use of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues to improve soil fertility and control soil erosion Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) X X Planting of agroforestry trees, such as Lucaena andgrevillea, along riverbanks and in farms to prevent/control erosion, counter soil acidification and salinization, and improve water retention and soil fertility Zaï pits (pot-holing) X Traditional agricultural technique used to cultivate and rehabilitate hard or heavily degraded soil. Holes are dug by hand, and are approximately 20 to 40 cm in diameter, 20 cm deep and spaced 90 cm apart. Zaï pits act as micro catchments within the field for collecting runoff water and minimizing erosion. During crop production, inputs such as fertilizers/manure, seed, water, and lime Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 41 Practice IP Description CRS MC all concentrate in the prepared hole as opposed to being spread over an area in furrow cultivation. Use of minimum tillage practices X X Leave crop residue on the soil surface to reduce water and wind erosion (i.e., by not ploughing after harvest). Soil and the surface residues are minimally disturbed between harvesting one crop and planting the next. Planting nitrogen-fixing trees X Planting nitrogen fixing trees and fruit trees (e.g., acacia) in irrigated gardens to improve soil fertility on the long term. Irrigation (G14A, G14B, G14C, G14D) Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies X Use of micro-drip or sprinkler irrigation systems to increase food production such as vegetables and fruit trees. Agriculture water management-non-irrigation-based (G14A, G14B, G14C, G14D) Use of rainwater harvesting technologies X X Use of rainwater harvesting technologies like water pans, rock catchment and roof catchments. Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) X Diversion of water from normally dry riverbeds when the river is in spate (i.e., during seasonal floods of rivers, streams, ponds and lakes) to fill water storage canals. This is done using spurs or bunds that are built across the riverbed. Climate adaptation/climate risk management (G14A, G14B, G14C, G14D) Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes X X Use of a cropping calendar for crop rotation by irrigation scheme. The cropping calendar will promote crop rotation and will ensure consistency in supplying markets with commodities through-out the year. The current practice is based on a 6-month cropping cycle, but we will support farmers to come up with a 12-month crop calendar showing the crops to be grown after each 3-month cycle starting on January 1st. Use of drought early warning information/systems X X Use of early warning indicators such as vegetation condition for timely planning and reduction of the impact of a drought hazard. Use of weather forecast from meteorological department which shall be disseminated using vernacular radio stations and SMS based platforms. Early warning information can also be disseminated through the following channel: 1) Personal contact or contact via mobile phones, including Short Message Service; 2) Messages transmitted by community leaders; 3) Messages transmitted by agricultural extension agents; 4) Meetings held by grassroots organizations; 5) Meetings in churches; and 6) Meetings in schools NOTES: Applies to all crops (Cowpeas; Orange fleshed sweet potatoes; Green Grams; Sorghum). IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 42 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol Marketing and distribution - value chain activities (G11) CRS MC Definition Contract farming X X Use of contract farming to improve access to markets by smallholder farmers Use of training and extension services X X Storage and preservation farm and livestock products Selling products through community farmer associations X X Promoting the farmers/livestock herders to bring their commodities together to sell on better prices (bargaining power) Improved bulking X X Aggregation of animals, animal products such as milk for better bargaining power Sorting and grading X X Using physical characteristics such as size, shape, weight or color to separate food produce into categories Applies to all crops (Cowpeas; Orange fleshed sweet potatoes; Green Grams; Sorghum) and all livestock (cattle, goats, and camels). Post-harvest handling and storage (G16A, G16B, G16C, G16D) CRS MC Definition Aflatoxin prevention and control1 X X Proper drying and sensitization of modern and traditional moisture content indicators for cow peas and pasture seeds and proper post-harvest storage of grains. Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) X X Improved transportation of raw milk or fresh meat through use of aluminum cans. Use of food grade containers like crates. Use of well-equipped food storage structures X X Use of rodent-proof food storage facilities. Proper air circulation structures. Temperature and humidity control X X Use of shed nets and/or air conditioner or fans to lower the perceived temperature, dehumidify the air, and ensure the proper drying of harvested crops of vegetables. Solar drying for grains and pulses X Use of solar drying equipment to reduce moisture to required levels for proper storage NOTES: Applies to all crops (Cowpeas; Orange fleshed sweet potatoes; Green Grams; Sorghum). Natural resource Management (G21) CRS MC Definition Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species X Facilitate range land rehabilitation through the use of drought￾resistant grass seeds and the use of seed broadcasting techniques on degraded lands. Fencing off pasture plots X X Establishment of pasture plots by digging holes and fencing plots with poles and barbed wire to conserve pasture. Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands X X Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands through the construction of soil and water conservation structures and fencing degraded lands from grazing by livestock Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) X X Construction of gabions and rock terraces to conserve soil and prevent erosion Use of natural barriers/cover crops X X Use of grass strips and cover crops to conserve soil and prevent erosion Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues X X Use of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues to improve soil fertility and control soil erosion Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 43 Natural resource Management (G21) CRS MC Definition Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) X X Planting of agroforestry trees, such as Lucaena andgrevillea, along riverbanks and in farms to prevent/control erosion, counter soil acidification and salinization, and improve water retention and soil fertility Zaï pits (pot-holing) X Traditional agricultural technique used to cultivate and rehabilitate hard or heavily degraded soil. Holes are dug by hand, and are approximately 20 to 40 cm in diameter, 20 cm deep and spaced 90 cm apart. Zaï pits act as micro catchments within the field for collecting runoff water and minimizing erosion. During crop production, inputs such as fertilizers/manure, seed, water, and lime all concentrate in the prepared hole as opposed to being spread over an area in furrow cultivation. Use of minimum tillage practices X X Leave crop residue on the soil surface to reduce water and wind erosion (i.e., by not ploughing after harvest). Soil and the surface residues are minimally disturbed between harvesting one crop and planting the next. Planting nitrogen-fixing trees X Planting nitrogen fixing trees and fruit trees (e.g., acacia) in irrigated gardens to improve soil fertility on the long term. NOTES: Applies to all crops (Cowpeas; Orange fleshed sweet potatoes; Green Grams; Sorghum) and all livestock (cattle, goats, and camels). Table 4. List of value chain activities promoted in the BHA RFSA in Kenya by value chain commodity41 Value Chain Type Targeted value-chain practices (FOR G11) Fodder Value Chain Screening question: Do you produce fodder with the intention to sell or resell it to earn income? Use of improved pasture inputs (e.g., quality seeds) (MC) Use of mechanized pasture harvesting and baling technologies (MC) Construction and use of hay stores by farmer organizations (MC) Use of fodder seeds (MC) Use of harvesting, drying, packaging, storage, and marketing technologies (MC) NOTE: Includes practices that are adopted at the household level. Practices that are undertaken by traders or farmers’ associations are not included. 41 See also activities listed under “Marketing and Distribution.” IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 44 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol ANNEX 3. SCHEDULE TRAINING OF TRAINERS AND MAIN TRAINING OF ENUMERATORS SCHEDULE TRAINING OF TRAINERS AND MAIN TRAINING OF ENUMERATORS 2021 Population-based Baseline Survey of the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Training of Trainers (ToT) Nairobi, Kenya September 25 – September 29 TRAINING OF TRAINERS – led by TANGO virtually Date Local Time Topic Facilitation Notes Location Saturday, September 25 (Day 1) 09:00 – 12:30 Review background documents: protocol, questionnaires, and manuals N/A (reading period) Participants will review background materials and familiarize themselves with the paper questionnaires and survey procedures Pride Inn Hotel (Westlands) 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch 13:30 – 15:00 Document review (cont’d.) N/A (reading period) (Same as previous session) 15:00 – 15:15 Welcome and Introduction TANGO Introduction to BHA; Background on BHA population-based surveys; Purpose of the baseline study https://us02web .zoom.us/j/8340 8803195?pwd= QnZjS1lyRG9U QzFYU2dEaH Q3Unl6QT09 Password: tango 15:15 – 17:00 • BHA survey methodology • Importance of using local, respondent￾friendly language and socio-cultural concepts • Pre-fieldwork activities • COVID-19 awareness, and mitigation strategies • Roles and responsibilities • Preparing for field work TANGO • Survey design and modules • Review of pre￾fieldwork activities (listing, main training, and pilot) • Background on COVID-19 and mitigation strategies • Discussion of survey organization and responsibilities of coordinators, team leads, and survey monitors • Planning, logistics, and communication procedures and protocols Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 45 TRAINING OF TRAINERS – led by TANGO virtually Date Local Time Topic Facilitation Notes Location 17:00 – 17:15 Tea break 17:15 – 19:00 • Organizing and supervising fieldwork • Monitoring enumerator performance • Finalizing work TANGO • Locating clusters and household, selecting individuals • Assigning work to enumerators • Maintaining field completion forms and enumerator assignment sheets • Reducing non￾response; Handling pending interviews; Maintaining morale • Observing interviews, conducting spot￾checks, evaluating performance • Questionnaire review and closing the cluster (Same as previous session) Sunday, September 26 (Day 2) 09:00 – 12:30* Introduction to CAPI and CSPro basics Distribution of tablets CSPro Menu system Kimetrica Tablets are distributed and a walk-though the CSPro program is performed. Participants will familiarize themselves navigating the CSPro data entry application Pride Inn Hotel (Westlands) 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch 13:30 – 15:00 CAPI/CSPro session (cont’d.) Kimetrica Pride Inn Hotel (Westlands) 15:00 – 15:15 Recap of Day-1 TANGO Discuss comments and questions on topics covered in Day-1 https://us02web .zoom.us/j/8340 8803195?pwd= QnZjS1lyRG9U QzFYU2dEaH Q3Unl6QT09 Password: tango 15:15 – 17:00 Discussion on Modules A, B and C TANGO Q by Q discussion of Modules on: • Household identification and informed consent • Household Roster • Food Consumption Score/Food Insecurity Experience Scale (Same as previous session) 17:00 – 17:15 Tea break IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 46 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol TRAINING OF TRAINERS – led by TANGO virtually Date Local Time Topic Facilitation Notes Location 17:15 – 19:00 Discussion on Modules F and R (paper-based questionnaires) TANGO Q by Q discussion of the following modules: • Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene • Resilience/COVID-19 (Same as previous session) Monday, September 27 (Day 3) 09:00 – 10:00 Background on RFSAs (objective, geographic coverage, target populations) IP M&E and Technical staff IPs will introduce their RFSA and describe their activities. Separate sessions for each RFSA running in parallel. Pride Inn Hotel (Westlands) 10:00 – 11:00 WASH interventions 11:00 – 12:30 Agri./livelihoods interventions 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch 13:30 – 15:00 Gender and MCHN interventions IP staff (Same as previous session) 15:00 – 15:15 Recap of Day-2 TANGO Discuss comments and questions on topics covered in Day-2 https://us02web .zoom.us/j/8340 8803195?pwd= QnZjS1lyRG9U QzFYU2dEaH Q3Unl6QT09 Password: tango 15:15 – 17:00 Discussion of Module R (cont’d.) Discussion of Modules D (paper￾based questionnaires) TANGO Q by Q discussion of the following modules: • Resilience/COVID-19 • Children’s Feeding Practices and Diarrhea (Same as previous session) 17:00 – 17:15 Tea break 17:15 – 19:00 Discussion of Modules E, J and K (paper-based questionnaires) TANGO Q by Q discussion of the following modules: • Women's Health, Nutritional Status, Dietary Diversity and Family Planning • Gender and Cash • Access to Credit and Group Membership (Same as previous session) Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 47 TRAINING OF TRAINERS – led by TANGO virtually Date Local Time Topic Facilitation Notes Location Tuesday, September 28 (Day 4) 09:00 – 12:30 Practice and role play using tablets Kimetrica Participants will review materials from the previous day and role play using tablets to identify comments and questions to discuss with TANGO team. Pride Inn Hotel (Westlands) 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch 13:30 – 15:00 Practice and role play using tablets (cont’d.) Kimetrica Role play on tablets (Same as previous session) 15:00 – 15:15 Recap of Day-3 TANGO Discuss comments and questions on topics covered in Day-3 https://us02web .zoom.us/j/8340 8803195?pwd= QnZjS1lyRG9U QzFYU2dEaH Q3Unl6QT09 Password: tango 15:15 – 17:00 Discussion of Module 8 (paper-based questionnaires) TANGO Q by Q discussion of poverty-related modules (Same as previous session) 17:00 – 17:15 Tea break 17:15 – 19:00 Discussion of Modules G, 7.50, 7.51, and 7.53 TANGO Q by Q discussion of ag￾related modules (Same as previous session) Wednesday, September 29 (Day 5) 09:00 – 12:30 Mock interviews with CAPI (all modules) Break-out groups CAPI training/practice running through full questionnaire skip logic Pride Inn Hotel (Westlands) 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch 13:30 – 15:00 Mock interviews with CAPI (all modules) Break-out groups CAPI training/practice running through full questionnaire skip logic (Same as previous session) 15:00 – 15:15 Mock interviews with CAPI (all modules) TANGO Discuss comments and questions on topics covered in Day-4 https://us02web .zoom.us/j/8340 8803195?pwd= QnZjS1lyRG9U QzFYU2dEaH Q3Unl6QT09 Password: tango 15:15 – 17:00 Mock interviews with CAPI (all modules) TANGO Makeup session to be used to finalize review of materials not completed within the timeframe (Same as previous session) 17:00 – 17:15 Tea break 17:15 – 19:00 Mock interviews with CAPI (all modules) TANGO Makeup session (Same as previous session) IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 48 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol Enumerator Training Nakuru, Kenya October 1 – October 7 ENUMERATOR TRAINING – led by Kimetrica Field Coordinators with remote support from TANGO Date Local Time Topic Facilitation Notes Friday, October 1 (Day 1) 08:00 – 08:30 Registration Kimetrica trainers/coordinators 08:30 – 08:45 Welcome and Introduction Kimetrica trainers/coordinators Introduction to BHA; Background on BHA population-based surveys; Purpose of the baseline study 08:45 – 10:30 Survey methodology General rules, norms, and guidance on survey implementation Importance of using local, respondent￾friendly language and socio-cultural concepts COVID-19 awareness, and mitigation strategies Overview of the paper questionnaire and respondent eligibility/selection Kimetrica trainers/coordinators • Sampling design and field procedures • Survey organization and responsibilities of coordinators, team leads, and survey monitors • Performance standards in interviewing • Description of modules and respondent eligibility criteria 10:30 – 10:45 Tea Break 10:45 – 11:30 Introduction to CAPI and CSPro basics Distribution of tablets CSPro Menu system Kimetrica trainers/coordinators Tablets are distributed on the first day and participants are trained on navigating the CSPro program 11:30 – 12:30 Discussion on Module A and Module B (paper-based) Kimetrica trainers/coordinators Q by Q discussion of the following modules: • Household identification and informed consent • Household Roster 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 49 ENUMERATOR TRAINING – led by Kimetrica Field Coordinators with remote support from TANGO Date Local Time Topic Facilitation Notes 13:30 – 15:00 Discussion on Modules C and F (paper-based) Kimetrica/IM Q by Q discussion of the following modules: • Food Consumption Score/Food Insecurity Experience Scale: • Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene 15:00 – 16:00 Practice and role play: Modules A, B, C and F Kimetrica/IM Practice and role play using tablets (break-out groups) 16:00 – 16:30 Tea break 16:30 – 17:30 Practice and role play: Modules A, B, C and F (cont’d.) De-brief: Modules A, B, C and F Kimetrica/IM 17:30 – 18:00 Break 18:00 – 18:30 Daily de-brief Kimetrica coordinators/IM/TANGO Virtual Saturday, October 2 (Day 2) 08:30 – 09:00 Recap of Day-1 Kimetrica Discuss comments and questions on topics covered in Day-1 09:00 – 10:30 Discussion on Module R (paper-based) Kimetrica Q by Q discussion of the following modules: • Resilience/COVID-19 10:30 – 10:45 Tea break 10:45 – 12:00 Practice and role play: Module R Kimetrica/IM Practice and role play using tablets (break-out groups) 12:00 – 12:30 De-brief: Modules R Kimetrica/IM Plenary session 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch 13:30 – 14:15 Discussion on Module D (paper-based) Kimetrica Q by Q discussion of the following modules: • Children’s Feeding Practices and Diarrhea 14:15 – 15:00 Discussion on Module E (paper-based) Kimetrica Q by Q discussion of the following modules: • Women's Health, Nutritional Status, Dietary Diversity and Family Planning IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 50 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol ENUMERATOR TRAINING – led by Kimetrica Field Coordinators with remote support from TANGO Date Local Time Topic Facilitation Notes 15:00 – 16:00 Practice and role play: Modules D and E Kimetrica/IM Practice and role play using tablets (break-out groups) 16:00 – 16:30 Tea 16:30 – 17:30 Practice and role play: Modules D and E (cont’d.) Debrief: Modules D and E Kimetrica/IM Practice and role play using tablets (break-out groups) 17:30 – 18:00 Break 18:00 – 18:30 Daily de-brief Kimetrica coordinators/IM/TANGO Virtual Sunday, October 3 (Day 3) 08:30 – 09:00 Recap of Day-2 Kimetrica Discuss comments and questions on topics covered in Day-2 09:00 – 10:30 Discussion on Modules J and K (paper-based) Q by Q discussion of the following modules: • Gender and Cash • Access to Credit and Group Membership 10:30 – 10:45 Tea break 10:45 – 12:00 Practice and role play: Modules J and K Kimetrica/IM Practice and role play using tablets (break-out groups) 12:00 – 12:30 Debrief: Modules J and K Kimetrica/IM Plenary session 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch 13:30 – 15:30 Discussion on Module 8 (paper-based) Kimetrica Q by Q discussion of poverty-related modules 15:30 – 16:00 Practice and role play: Module 8 Kimetrica/IM Practice and role play using tablets (break-out groups) 16:00 – 16:30 Tea break 16:30 – 17:30 Practice and role play: Module 8 (cont’d) Debrief: Module 8 Kimetrica/IM Practice and role play using tablets (break-out groups) 17:30 – 18:00 Break 18:00 – 17:30 Daily de-brief Kimetrica coordinators/IM/TANGO Virtual Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 51 ENUMERATOR TRAINING – led by Kimetrica Field Coordinators with remote support from TANGO Date Local Time Topic Facilitation Notes Monday, October 4 (Day 4) 08:30 – 09:00 Recap of Day-3 Kimetrica Discuss comments and questions on topics covered in Day-3 09:00 – 09:30 Introduction to RFSA IP staff Background, strategic objectives of the RFSAs (to increase contextual and conceptual understanding) 09:30 – 10:30 RFSA agriculture/livelihoods interventions IP Agriculture/ Livelihoods Specialists Presentation on targeted improved agricultural practices, value chains 10:30 – 10:45 Tea break 10:45 – 12:30 Discussion on Module G (paper-based) Kimetrica Q by Q discussion of Module G 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch 13:30 – 15:00 Discussion on ag￾related modules (paper￾based): Mod 7.50 – Cattle Mod 7.51 – Goats Mod 7.53 – Camels Kimetrica Q by Q discussion of Module G 15:00 – 16:30 Practice and role play: Modules G, 7.50, 7.51, 7.53 Kimetrica Practice and role play using tablets (break-out groups) 16:00 – 16:30 Tea break 16:30 – 17:30 Practice and role play: Modules G, 7.50, 7.51, 7.53 (cont’d.) Debrief: Ag-related modules (G, 7.51, 7.50, 7.53) Kimetrica/IM Practice and role play using tablets (break-out groups) 17:30 – 18:00 Break 18:00 – 18:30 Daily de-brief Kimetrica coordinators/IM/TANGO Virtual IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 52 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol ENUMERATOR TRAINING – led by Kimetrica Field Coordinators with remote support from TANGO Date Local Time Topic Facilitation Notes Tuesday, October 5 (Day 5) 08:30 – 09:00 Recap of Day-4 Kimetrica Discuss comments and questions on topics covered in Day-4 09:00 – 10:30 RFSA WASH Interventions IP WASH Specialists Description of WASH interventions 10:30 – 10:45 Tea break 10:45 – 12:30 RFSA MCHN/Gender Interventions IP MCHN and Gender Specialists Description of MCHN and gender-related interventions 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch 13:30 – 16:00 Mock interviews in local languages with CAPI (all modules) Kimetrica/IM CAPI training/practice running through full questionnaire skip logic and translating into local languages (break-out groups) 16:00 – 16:30 Tea break 16:30 – 17:30 Mock interviews in local languages with CAPI (all modules) Kimetrica/IM CAPI training/practice 17:30 – 18:00 Break 18:00 – 18:30 Daily de-brief Kimetrica coordinators/IM/TANGO Virtual Wednesday, October 6 (Day 6) 08:30 – 10:30 Mock interviews in local languages with CAPI (all modules) Kimetrica/IM CAPI training/practice running 10:30 – 10:45 Tea break 10:45 – 12:30 Mock interviews in local languages with CAPI (all modules) Kimetrica/IM CAPI training/practice 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch 13:30 – 16:00 Review of managing tablets in the field/transferring data Practice finalizing work in a cluster Kimetrica/IM Coordinators and Team Leads only 16:00 – 16:30 Tea break 16:30 – 18:30 Planning for the pretest Kimetrica/IM/ TANGO Planning for the pretest Thursday, October 7 (Day 7) 09:00 – 15:00 Mock interviews in local languages with CAPI (all modules) Kimetrica/IM CAPI training/practice Friday, October 8 Pilot and debrief (Day 8) 07:30 – 08:00 Travel for pilot test Kimetrica/IM 08:00 – 12:30 Field practice Kimetrica/IM 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch break Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol 53 ENUMERATOR TRAINING – led by Kimetrica Field Coordinators with remote support from TANGO Date Local Time Topic Facilitation Notes 13:30 – 16:30 Field practice Kimetrica/IM 16:30 – 17:00 Travel back from field Kimetrica/IM 17:00 – 19:00 Debrief: Pilot test and adjustment Kimetrica/IM Review of questionnaire; feedback on administering survey; final changes to survey 19:00 – 20:00 Discussion on field practice and adjustment Kimetrica/IM/ TANGO Pilot debriefing Deployment plan/logistics Saturday, October 9 (Day 9) 08:30 – 10:30 Closing Deployment to counties Kimetrica IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 54 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol ANNEX 4: INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT The text below is excerpted from Module A of the questionnaire and indicates the informed consent language that will be used. Introduction Hello. My name is ________________. I am working with Kimetrica on behalf of TANGO International. We are conducting a survey to learn about household characteristics, agriculture, food security, expenditures, and nutrition of women and children. Your household was selected to participate in an interview that may take up to three hours to complete. We will interview you and other members of your household as needed. Your participation is completely voluntary. There are risks associated with participating in this survey because of the possibility of transmission of COVID-19 /CORONA. COVID-19 can be spread through droplets in the air when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks, or by touching a contaminated surface and then touching your eyes, nose, or mouth before washing your hands. Our team will take precautions to mitigate the risk of spreading the virus, such as wearing a face covering, standing at least one meter apart throughout the interview and washing/sanitizing hands before and after. There will be no benefit provided to you because of your participation. We hope you will agree to answer the questions since your views and experiences are important. If I ask you any questions you don't want to answer, let me know and I will go on to the next question. You can also stop the interview at any time. The data collected in this survey may be used as part of a study in the future. If your household is selected for the future study, then a second survey will be conducted. If you agree to participate in the second survey, the data from this survey will be used for comparison. If you decide not to participate in either survey, or if you withdraw from participating at any time, you will not be penalized in any way. Your privacy is important to us. No part of this interview is being recorded or videoed. If you agree to participate, some of the information you provide will be available on a public website that researchers and others will be able to access without identifying you. The information will be entered into a database that will NOT contain confidential information such as your name or the name of your village that could be used to identify you. Any data attached to your personal information will be stored in a password protected electronic format. Do you have any questions about the survey or what I have said? If in the future you have any questions regarding the survey or the interview, or concerns or complaints, we welcome you to contact Kimetrica by calling [xxxxxxxxx]. We will leave a copy of this statement and our organization’s complete contact information with you so that you may contact us at any time. Do you agree to participate in the survey? A01 CLUSTER CODE A02 HOUSEHOLD NUMBER (HH) A03 COUNTY A04 LOCATION A04 SUBLOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERVIEWER VISITS FIRST VISIT SECOND VISIT THIRD VISIT FINAL VISIT A05 DATE A06 ENUMERATOR A07 DAY OF VISIT A08 RESULT USE CODES BELOW A09 DAY A10 MONTH A11 YEAR A12 TOTAL NUMBER OF VISITS NEXT VISIT: DATE TIME A15 TOTAL PERSONS IN THE HOUSEHOLD A16 LINE NO. OF RESPONDENT TO A14 FINAL OUTCOME OF INTERVIEW (CIRCLE ONE) 1 COMPLETED 3 ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD ABSENT 2 NO HOUSEHOLD MEMBER AT HOME FOR EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME OR NO COMPETENT RESPONDENT 4 POSTPONED/PARTIALLY COMPLETED AT HOME AT TIME OF VISIT 5 REFUSED HOUSEHOLD ROSTER A17 TOTAL CHILDREN UNDER SIX YRS A18 TOTAL 9 OTHER WOMEN 15-49 YRS (SPECIFY) A19 TOTAL FARMERS A20 A22 INTERVIEWER SEX NAME CODE 1=MALE 2=FEMALE A21 INTERVIEWER A23 INTERVIEWER LOCALE NAME CODE INFORMED CONSENT : A00: START TIME BHA 2021 BASELINE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR KENYA (FINAL VERSION) Module A. Identification and Informed Consent (Head of HH or Responsible Adult) IDENTIFICATION (1) SUPERVISOR 2 0 2 1 HOUR MINUTE IT IS NECESSARY TO INTRODUCE THE SURVEY TO THE RESPONDENT HOUSEHOLD AND OBTAIN THE CONSENT OF ALL RESPONDENTS BEFORE ASKING ANY QUESTIONS. FIRST IDENTIFY THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD AND READ THE INFORMED CONSENT WITH HIM/HER. AFTER READING THE INFORMED CONSENT, IF THE PERSON AGREES THEN CONTINUE WITH THE QUESTIONS IN MODULE B TO IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. IF THE PERSON REFUSES TO ANSWER, ASK IF THERE IS ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE HOUSEHOLD WHO IS WILLING TO PARTICIPATE. READ THE INFORMED CONSENT TO THE OTHER ADULT MEMBER AND ONLY PROCEED WITH HER/HIS CONSENT. READ THE INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT TO EACH ELIGIBLE RESPONDENT PRIOR TO THE START OF EACH MODULE AND ONLY ASK QUESTIONS WITH THEIR CONSENT. IF NO HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS ARE WILLING TO GIVE CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE, THEN THE HOUSEHOLD IS CONSIDERED A NONRESPONDING HOUSEHOLD AND SHOULD BE CODED AS A REFUSAL. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 55 ANNEX B: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES Household Questionnaire HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR RESPONSIBLE ADULT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT AGREED DID NOT AGREE 1 NAME_____________________________Do you agree to participate in the survey? ____ ____ ADDITIONAL ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS 2. NAME_____________________________Do you agree to participate in the survey? NAME_____________________________Do you agree to participate in the survey? NAME_____________________________Do you agree to participate in the survey? NAME_____________________________Do you agree to participate in the survey? NAME_____________________________Do you agree to participate in the survey? NAME_____________________________Do you agree to participate in the survey? NAME_____________________________Do you agree to participate in the survey? NAME_____________________________Do you agree to participate in the survey? ____ ____ 3. ____ ____ 4. ____ ____ 5. ____ ____ 6. ____ ____ 7. ____ ____ 8. ____ ____ 9. ____ ____ My signature affirms that I have read the verbal informed consent statement to the respondent(s), and I have answered any questions asked about the study. INTERVIEWER'S NAME AND CODE SIGNATURE AND DATE INTERVIEWER'S NAME AND CODE SIGNATURE AND DATE DAY MONTH YEAR • • DAY MONTH YEAR • • A26: END TIME : 2 0 2 1 Hello. My name is ________________. I am working with Kimetrica on behalf of TANGO International. We are conducting a survey to learn about household characteristics, agriculture, food security, expenditures, and nutrition of women and children. Your household was selected to participate in an interview that may take up to three hours to complete. We will interview you and other members of your household as needed. Your participation is completely voluntary. There are risks associated with participating in this survey because of the possibility of the transmission of COVID-19 /CORONA. COVID-19 can be spread through droplets in the air when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks, or by touching a contaminated surface and then touching your eyes, nose, or mouth before washing your hands. Our team will take precautions to mitigate the risk of spreading the virus, such as wearing a face covering, standing at least one meter apart throughout the interview and washing/sanitizing hands before and after. There will be no benefit provided to you because of your participation. We hope you will agree to answer the questions since your views and experiences are important. If I ask you any questions you don't want to answer, let me know and I will go on to the next question. You can also stop the interview at any time. The data collected in this survey may be used as part of a study in the future. If your household is selected for the future study then a second survey will be conducted. If you agree to participate in the second survey, the data from this survey will be used for comparison. If you decide not to participate in either survey or if you withdraw from participating at any time, you will not be penalized in any way. Your privacy is important to us. No part of this interview is being recorded or videoed. If you agree to participate, some of the information you provide will be available on a public website that researchers and others will be able to access without identifying you. The information will be entered into a database that will NOT contain confidential information such as your name or the name of your village that could be used to identify you. Any data attached to your personal information will be stored in a password protected electronic format. Do you have any questions about the survey or what I have said? If in the future you have any questions regarding the survey or the interview, or concerns or complaints, we welcome you to contact Kimetrica by calling Sophia Githinji (+254 731 176 566), a Senior Rsearcher. We will leave a copy of this statement and our organization’s complete contact information with you so that you may contact us at any time. Do you agree to participate in the survey? 2 0 2 1 RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT GUARDIAN /GUARDIAN AGREED DID NOT AGREE HOUR MINUTE IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 56 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires MODU M F IN YEARS Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N LEVEL GRADE Y N LEVEL GRADE 01 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 02 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 03 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 04 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 05 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 06 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 07 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 08 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 09 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE GO TO B14 0 1 GO TO B14 GO TO B14 GO TO B14 GO TO B14 GO TO B14 GO TO B14 GO TO B14 GO TO B14 LE B. HOUSEHOLD ROSTER (HEAD OF HH OR RESPONSIBLE ADULT) B00A CLUSTER CODE B00B HOUSEHOLD ID IF UNDER 6 IF AGE 5 YEARS IF AGE 5-24 YEARS YEARS IF AGE 15 OR OLDER OR OLDER LINE RELATIONSHIP ELIGIBILITY EVER ATTENDED CURRENT/RECENT NO. USUAL RESIDENTS TO HEAD OF SEX AGE MODULE PRIMARY MODULE C, MODULE F, MARITAL SCHOOL SCHOOL ATTENDANCE HOUSEHOLD D CAREGIVER H1 MODULE E H2-H7, R MODULE G MODULE J MODULE J STATUS MODULE K B01 B02 B03 B04 B05 B06 B07 B08 B09 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 Please tell me the name and sex of each person who What is the Is How old is IS THIS Who is the Is [NAME] IS THIS A IS THIS Is (NAME) a Has (NAME) During the last What is IS THIS A Has (NAME) What is the highest Did (NAME) During this school lives here, starting with the head of the household. relationship of (NAME) (NAME)? PERSON primary responsible WOMAN 15- PERSON THE farmer? done any work in 12 months, was (NAME)'s WOMAN ≥15 ever attended grade (NAME) has attend year, what grade For our purposes today, members of a household (NAME) to the male or UNDER 6 caregiver for food 49 YEARS HEAD OF the last 12 (NAME) usually current marital YEARS OF school? completed? school at any is (NAME) are adults or children that live together and eat from head of the female? YEARS OF of preparation in OF AGE? THE HH OR A months? paid in cash or status? AGE AND time during attending? the "same pot". It should include anyone who has household? IF 95 OR AGE? [NAME]? the RESPON- kind for this MARRIED OR the 2021 lived in your house for at least 6 of the last 12 MORE, *SEE household? SIBLE ADULT work or was LIVING school year? months, but it does not include anyone who lives RECORD 95. DEFINITION IF HEAD OF (NAME) not 1 = MARRIED TOGETHER SEE CODES here but eats separately. HH IS paid at all? OR HER SEE CODES BELOW OR LIVING BELOW. ABSENT? PARTNER? BELOW. '98'=DON'T TOGETHER KNOW. USE 2 = DIVORCED/ SEE CODES ONLY FOR SEPARATED BELOW. PERSONS 3 = WIDOWED WHO ARE 4 = NEVER- ≥ 50. 1= CASH ONLY MARRIED AFTER LISTING NAMES, RELATIONSHIP, SEX, ***READ **READ 2= CASH AND AND AGE FOR EACH PERSON ASK QUESTIONS 2A- USE '00' ENTER LINE DEFINI-TION DEFINITION OF KIND NEVER 2C TO BE SURE ROSTER IS COMPLETE. THEN IF CHILD NUMBER OF OF FARMER "WORK" 3= IN KIND LIVED ASK QUESTIONS B06 TO B23 FOR EACH IS LESS PRIMARY BELOW TO BELOW TO ONLY TOGETHER PERSON THAN CAREGIVER RESPON- RESPON-DENT. 4= NOT PAID DENT. 1 YEAR Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 57 IF UNDER 6 IF AGE 5 YEARS IF AGE 5-24 YEARS YEARS IF AGE 15 OR OLDER OR OLDER LINE RELATIONSHIP ELIGIBILITY EVER ATTENDED CURRENT/RECENT NO. USUAL RESIDENTS TO HEAD OF SEX AGE MODULE PRIMARY MODULE C, MODULE F, MARITAL SCHOOL SCHOOL ATTENDANCE HOUSEHOLD D CAREGIVER H1 MODULE E H2-H7, R MODULE G MODULE J MODULE J STATUS MODULE K B01 B02 B03 B04 B05 B06 B07 B08 B09 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 Please tell me the name and sex of each person who What is the Is How old is IS THIS Who is the Is [NAME] IS THIS A IS THIS Is (NAME) a Has (NAME) During the last What is IS THIS A Has (NAME) What is the highest Did (NAME) During this school lives here, starting with the head of the household. relationship of (NAME) (NAME)? PERSON primary responsible WOMAN 15- PERSON THE farmer? done any work in 12 months, was (NAME)'s WOMAN ≥15 ever attended grade (NAME) has attend year, what grade For our purposes today, members of a household (NAME) to the male or UNDER 6 caregiver for food 49 YEARS HEAD OF the last 12 (NAME) usually current marital YEARS OF school? completed? school at any is (NAME) are adults or children that live together and eat from head of the female? YEARS OF of preparation in OF AGE? THE HH OR A months? paid in cash or status? AGE AND time during attending? the "same pot". It should include anyone who has household? IF 95 OR AGE? [NAME]? the RESPON- kind for this MARRIED OR the 2021 lived in your house for at least 6 of the last 12 MORE, *SEE household? SIBLE ADULT work or was LIVING school year? months, but it does not include anyone who lives RECORD 95. DEFINITION IF HEAD OF (NAME) not 1 = MARRIED TOGETHER SEE CODES here but eats separately. HH IS paid at all? OR HER SEE CODES BELOW OR LIVING BELOW. ABSENT? PARTNER? BELOW. '98'=DON'T TOGETHER KNOW. USE 2 = DIVORCED/ SEE CODES ONLY FOR SEPARATED BELOW. PERSONS 3 = WIDOWED WHO ARE 4 = NEVER- ≥ 50. 1= CASH ONLY MARRIED AFTER LISTING NAMES, RELATIONSHIP, SEX, ***READ **READ 2= CASH AND AND AGE FOR EACH PERSON ASK QUESTIONS 2A- USE '00' ENTER LINE DEFINI-TION DEFINITION OF KIND NEVER 2C TO BE SURE ROSTER IS COMPLETE. THEN IF CHILD NUMBER OF OF FARMER "WORK" 3= IN KIND LIVED ASK QUESTIONS B06 TO B23 FOR EACH IS LESS PRIMARY BELOW TO BELOW TO ONLY TOGETHER PERSON THAN CAREGIVER RESPON- RESPON-DENT. 4= NOT PAID DENT. 1 YEAR CODES FOR B03: RELATIONSHIP TO HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD *The primary caregiver is the person who knows the most about how and what the child is fed. Usually, but not always, this will be the child‟s mother. CODES FOR Qs. B17 AND B19: EDUCATION 01 = HEAD 07 = PARENT-IN-LAW LEVEL GRADE **Work includes jobs in the formal and/or informal sector, full time, part time, or seasonal work that is done within and/or outside the home. It includes, but is not limited to 02 = WIFE OR HUSBAND 08 = BROTHER OR SISTER 0 = PREPRIMARY 00 = LESS THAN 1 YEAR agricultural daily wage labor, off-farm daily wage labor, income generation activities, sale of goods produced or processed outside the home or at the home, homestead garden or 03 = SON OR DAUGHTER 09 = OTHER RELATIVE 1 = PRIMARY COMPLETED farm (e.g., vegetables, eggs, fish, livestock, artisanal goods), or petty trading. It can also include participating in cash for work, food for work, or conditional cash transfers and/or 04 = SON-IN-LAW OR 10 = ADOPTED/FOSTER/ 2 = POST-PRIMARY, VOCATIONAL (USE '00' FOR B17 ONLY. THIS productive safety net programs. For this indicator, work does not include caring for own children, cooking, cleaning or doing other routine chores for own household (e.g., fetching DAUGHTER-IN-LAW STEPCHILD 3 = SECONDARY/"A" LEVEL CODE IS NOT ALLOWED FOR water, collecting firewood) or being involved in agricultural production solely for household consumption. 05 = GRANDCHILD 11 = NOT RELATED 4 = COLLEGE(MIDDLE LEVEL) B19.) 06 = PARENT 98 = DON'T KNOW ***Farmers, including herders and fishers, are: 1) men and women who have access to a plot of land (even if very small) over which they make decisions about what will be 5 = UNIVERSITY 98 = DON'T KNOW grown, how it will be grown, and how to dispose of the harvest; AND/OR 2) men and women who have animals and/or aquaculture products over which they have decision-making 8 = DON'T KNOW power. Farmers produce food, feed, and fiber, where "food" includes agronomic crops(crops grown in large scale, such as grains), horticulture crops (vegetables, fruit, nuts, berries, and herbs), animal and aquaculture products, as well as natural products (e.g., non-timber forest products, wild fisheries). These farmers may engage in processing and marketing of food, feed, and fiber and may reside in settled communities, mobile pastoralist communities, or refugee/internally displaced person camps. An adult member of the household who does farm work but does not have decision-making responsibility over the plot OR animals would not be considered a "farmer." For instance, a woman working on her husband's land who does not control a plot of her own would not be interviewed. M F Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N LEVEL GRADE Y N LEVEL GRADE 10 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 11 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 13 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 14 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 15 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 16 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 17 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE 18 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NEXT LINE NEXT LINE GO TO B14 GO TO B14 GO TO B14 GO TO B14 GO TO B14 GO TO B14 GO TO B14 GO TO B14 GO TO B14 IN YEARS IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 58 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires IF UNDER 6 IF AGE 5 YEARS IF AGE 5-24 YEARS YEARS IF AGE 15 OR OLDER OR OLDER LINE RELATIONSHIP ELIGIBILITY EVER ATTENDED CURRENT/RECENT NO. USUAL RESIDENTS TO HEAD OF SEX AGE MODULE PRIMARY MODULE C, MODULE F, MARITAL SCHOOL SCHOOL ATTENDANCE HOUSEHOLD D CAREGIVER H1 MODULE E H2-H7, R MODULE G MODULE J MODULE J STATUS MODULE K B01 B02 B03 B04 B05 B06 B07 B08 B09 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 Please tell me the name and sex of each person who What is the Is How old is IS THIS Who is the Is [NAME] IS THIS A IS THIS Is (NAME) a Has (NAME) During the last What is IS THIS A Has (NAME) What is the highest Did (NAME) During this school lives here, starting with the head of the household. relationship of (NAME) (NAME)? PERSON primary responsible WOMAN 15- PERSON THE farmer? done any work in 12 months, was (NAME)'s WOMAN ≥15 ever attended grade (NAME) has attend year, what grade For our purposes today, members of a household (NAME) to the male or UNDER 6 caregiver for food 49 YEARS HEAD OF the last 12 (NAME) usually current marital YEARS OF school? completed? school at any is (NAME) are adults or children that live together and eat from head of the female? YEARS OF of preparation in OF AGE? THE HH OR A months? paid in cash or status? AGE AND time during attending? the "same pot". It should include anyone who has household? IF 95 OR AGE? [NAME]? the RESPON- kind for this MARRIED OR the 2021 lived in your house for at least 6 of the last 12 MORE, *SEE household? SIBLE ADULT work or was LIVING school year? months, but it does not include anyone who lives RECORD 95. DEFINITION IF HEAD OF (NAME) not 1 = MARRIED TOGETHER SEE CODES here but eats separately. HH IS paid at all? OR HER SEE CODES BELOW OR LIVING BELOW. ABSENT? PARTNER? BELOW. '98'=DON'T TOGETHER KNOW. USE 2 = DIVORCED/ SEE CODES ONLY FOR SEPARATED BELOW. PERSONS 3 = WIDOWED WHO ARE 4 = NEVER- ≥ 50. 1= CASH ONLY MARRIED AFTER LISTING NAMES, RELATIONSHIP, SEX, ***READ **READ 2= CASH AND AND AGE FOR EACH PERSON ASK QUESTIONS 2A- USE '00' ENTER LINE DEFINI-TION DEFINITION OF KIND NEVER 2C TO BE SURE ROSTER IS COMPLETE. THEN IF CHILD NUMBER OF OF FARMER "WORK" 3= IN KIND LIVED ASK QUESTIONS B06 TO B23 FOR EACH IS LESS PRIMARY BELOW TO BELOW TO ONLY TOGETHER PERSON THAN CAREGIVER RESPON- RESPON-DENT. 4= NOT PAID DENT. 1 YEAR CODES FOR Qs. B17 AND B19: EDUCATION LEVEL GRADE 0 = PREPRIMARY 00 = LESS THAN 1 YEAR 1 = PRIMARY COMPLETED 2 = POST-PRIMARY, VOCATIONAL (USE '00' FOR B21 ONLY. THIS 3 = SECONDARY/"A" LEVEL CODE IS NOT ALLOWED FOR 4 = COLLEGE(MIDDLE LEVEL) B23.) 5 = UNIVERSITY 98 = DON'T KNOW 8 = DON'T KNOW B24: END TIME HOUR MINUTE GO TO NEXT MODULE 2A) Just to make sure that I have a complete listing: are there any other persons such YES ADD TO TABLE as small children or infants that we have not listed? NO 2B) Are there any other people who may not be members of your family, such as YES ADD TO TABLE domestic servants, lodgers, or friends who usually live here? NO 2C) Does anyone else live here even if they are not at home now? INCLUDE YES ADD TO TABLE CHILDREN IN SCHOOL OR HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS AT WORK OR MIGRATED. NO CODES FOR B03: RELATIONSHIP TO HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD 01 = HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD 07 = PARENT-IN-LAW 02 = WIFE OR HUSBAND 08 = BROTHER OR SISTER 03 = SON OR DAUGHTER 09 = OTHER RELATIVE 04 = SON-IN-LAW OR 10 = ADOPTED/FOSTER/ DAUGHTER-IN-LAW STEPCHILD 05 = GRANDCHILD 11 = NOT RELATED 06 = PARENT 98 = DON'T KNOW *The primary caregiver is the person who knows the most about how and what the child is fed. Usually, but not always, this will be the child‟s mother. **Work includes jobs in the formal and/or informal sector, full time, part time, or seasonal work that is done within and/or outside the home. It includes, but is not limited to agricultural daily wage labor, off-farm daily wage labor, income generation activities, sale of goods produced or processed outside the home or at the home, homestead garden or farm (e.g., vegetables, eggs, fish, livestock, artisanal goods), or petty trading. It can also include participating in cash for work, food for work, or conditional cash transfers and/or productive safety net programs. For this indicator, work does not include caring for own children, cooking, cleaning or doing other routine chores for own household (e.g., fetching water, collecting firewood) or being involved in agricultural production solely for household consumption. ***Farmers, including herders and fishers, are: 1) men and women who have access to a plot of land (even if very small) over which they make decisions about what will be grown, how it will be grown, and how to dispose of the harvest; AND/OR 2) men and women who have animals and/or aquaculture products over which they have decision-making power. Farmers produce food, feed, and fiber, where "food" includes agronomic crops(crops grown in large scale, such as grains), horticulture crops (vegetables, fruit, nuts, berries, and herbs), animal and aquaculture products, as well as natural products (e.g., non-timber forest products, wild fisheries). These farmers may engage in processing and marketing of food, feed, and fiber and may reside in settled communities, mobile pastoralist communities, or refugee/internally displaced person camps. An adult member of the household who does farm work but does not have decision-making responsibility over the plot OR animals would not be considered a "farmer." For instance, a woman working on her husband's land who does not control a plot of her own would not be interviewed. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 59 NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES C00 INSERT TIME MODULE STARTED HOUR MINUTE C01 CLUSTER CODE AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER HH C02 LINE NUMBER (B01) C03 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NOT AVAILABLE 3 C24 FCS QUESTIONS C04 NUMBER OF DAYS C05 NUMBER OF DAYS C06 NUMBER OF DAYS C07 NUMBER OF DAYS C08 NUMBER OF DAYS C09 NUMBER OF DAYS C10 NUMBER OF DAYS C11 NUMBER OF DAYS C12 NUMBER OF DAYS C13 NUMBER OF DAYS C14 NUMBER OF DAYS C15 NUMBER OF DAYS FIES QUESTIONS C16 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C17 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C18 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C19 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C20 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C21 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C22 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C23 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C24 INSERT TIME MODULE ENDED HOUR MINUTE GO TO NEXT MODULE 98 98 Any food made with vegetables such as onions, tomato, cucumber, radishes, green beans, peas, cabbage, lettuce, green leafy vegetables (e.g., sukumu wiki, spinach, broccoli, amaranth, cassava leaves, gathered wild green leaves), pumpkin, mushroom, kale, leak, green pepper, beet root, garlic, carrots, Akaideit/pumpkin leaves, or traditional herbs (Seketet, Lmakutikuti, Lkinyil, Ljurman)? 98 98 98 98 During the past 30 days, was there a time when you or others in your household were hungry but did not eat because there was not enough money or other resources for food? During the past 30 days, was there a time when you or others in your household went without eating for a whole day because of a lack of money or other resources? During the past 30 days, was there a time when you or others in your household were worried you would not have enough food to eat because of a lack of money or other resources? During the past 30 days, was there a time when you or others in your household were unable to eat healthy and nutritious food because of a lack of money or other resources? During the past 30 days, was there a time when you or others in your household ate only a few kinds of foods because of a lack of money or other resources? During the past 30 days, was there a time when you or others in your household had to skip a meal because there was not enough money or other resources to get food? During the past 30 days, was there a time when you or others in your household ate less than you thought you should because of a lack of money or other resources? Module C. Household Food Access (Person responsible for food preparation) CLUST ER PERSON IN CHARGE OF FOOD PREPARATION FROM THE HOUSEHOLD ROSTER (B08) = 1) OR RESPONSIBLE ADULT OBTAIN CONSENT. DOES [NAME] AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY? Now I would like to ask you about the types of foods that you or the majority of household members ate during the past 7 days. READ THE QUESTION INSERTING THE NAME OF THE FOOD ITEM LISTED IN QUESTIONS C04 TO C15 AND RECORD THE RESPONSE IN THE BOXES PROVIDED. How many days did you or members of your household eat ….. during the past 7 days both inside and outside your home? 1= 1 day 2= 2 days 3= 3 days 4= 4 days 5= 5 days 6= 6 days 7= 7 days 9= Not consumed 98 Any other foods, such as condiments, traditional beer, beer, wine, coffee or tea? Any bread, rice, pasta, injera, biscuits, or other foods made from teff, barley, millet, sorghum, maize, rice, wheat, Nang'aria, Atap/ugali, Epeipe/maize, Echurukum/Ng'iimua/soughum, Lokiteiteyo, Mashisha, or Lkitege ? Any foods made with potatoes, yams, sweet potatoes, irish potatoes, manioc, cassava, plantain, kocho, godere, anchote, amicho, boina and boye, taro or bula or any other foods made from roots or tubers? Any food or fruit juices made from fruits such as apple, mango, banana, oranges, pineapple, papaya, paw paw, guava, avocado, wild fruit, lemon, Ng'akator, Edome, Eng'oomo, Edung, Eng'ol, Ekadala, Ng'akalalio, Ebei, Ng'abulalae, Ng'apedur, Elamach, Epat, Ng'achokio, or Ng'alam? Any food made from beef, lamb, goat, pork, wild game, chicken, or other birds, other meats, liver, kidney, heart, Lookot, Enyas, Ng'amorumoru, Emur/ghee, Edapal, Blood (Lodo) (from a cow or camel), or other organ meats? Any eggs? Any fresh fish, smoked fish, canned tuna, fish soup/sauce or dried fish or shellfish? Any foods made from beans (white, brown, horse), peas, lentils, chick peas, rape seed, linseed, sesame, sunflower, vetch soybean flour or nuts (groundnuts, groundnut flour)? Any cheese, yogurt, milk, powder milk, butter milk, camel milk or other milk products? Any foods made with oil, fat, or butter? Any sugar or sweet things such as sugar cane, honey, jam, cakes, candy, pastries, sugary drinks, Eminae, Ekaamit, Apinet, or Lchang'aro? 98 Now I would like to ask you some questions about your food consumption during the last 30 days. READ EACH QUESTION AS WRITTEN. During the past 30 days, was there a time when your household did not have food because of a lack of money or other resources? IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 60 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires Module F. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (Head of HH or Responsible Adult) NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES SKIP F00 INSERT TIME MODULE STARTED F01 CLUSTER CODE AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER F02 HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD OR RESPONSIBLE ADULT (B10 = 1) FROM HOUSEHOLD ROSTER OBTAIN CONSENT. DOES [NAME] AGREE TO F03 PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY? DRINKING WATER HOUR MINUTE CLUSTER HH LINE NUMBER (B01) YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NOT AVAILABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 F17 F04 What is currently the main source of drinking water for PIPED WATER members of your household? PIPED INTO DWELLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 PIPED TO YARD/PLOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 PIPED TO NEIGHBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 PUBLIC TAP/STANDPIPE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 TUBEWELL OR BOREHOLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 DUG WELL PROTECTED WELL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 UNPROTECTED WELL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 WATER FROM SPRING PROTECTED SPRING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 UNPROTECTED SPRING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 RAINWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 TANKER TRUCK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 CART WITH SMALL TANK 71 SURFACE WATER (RIVER/DAM/ LAKE/POND/STREAM/CANAL/IRRIGATION CHANNEL) . 81 BOTTLED WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 OTHER 96 (SPECIFY) F07 F07 F05 Where is that water source located? F06 How long does it take to go there, get water, and come back? F07 Is water available from this source all year round? F08 In the last two weeks, was water unavailable from this source for a day or longer? F09 Do you do anything to the water to make it safer to drink? IN OWN DWELLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 IN OWN YARD/PLOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 F07 ELSEWHERE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 MINUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 F10A Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 61 Module F. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (Head of HH or Responsible Adult) NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES SKIP F10 What do you usually do to make the water safer to drink? Anything else? REFER TO THE MANUAL FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON OBSERVATIONS NEEDED TO VERIFY EACH METHOD. RECORD ALL RESPONSES AFTER VERIFICATION. F10A What types of containers do you usually use to collect water for your household? SHOW PICTURES TO RESPONDENT IF MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF CONTAINER IS USUALLY USED, RECORD ALL THAT APPLY. F10B How many of these containers do you usually fill when collecting water for your household? REPEAT QUESTION 10B FOR EACH TYPE OF CONTAINER REPORTED IN 10A F10C How often do you usually fill the containters? REPEAT QUESTION 10C FOR EACH TYPE OF CONTAINER REPORTED IN 10A SANITATION F11 What kind of toilet facility do members of your household usually use ? IF RESPONDENT CANNOT GIVE CLEAR RESPONSE, THEN OBSERVE THE TOILET AND RECORD THE CORRECT RESPONSE. F12 Does your household share the toilet facility with other households? F13 How many households share that toilet facility? CHLORINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A FLOCCULENT/DISINFECTANT (physio-chemical disinfection) B FILTRATION (physical removal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C SOLAR DISINFECTION (UV/heat disinfection) D BOILING (disinfection via heat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E LET IT STAND AND SETTLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F OTHER X (SPECIFY) DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y Small jerry can (5-9 liter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Large jerry can (20 liter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B Small bucket (5-9 liter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C Large bucket (10-20 liter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D Clay jars or pots (10-20 liter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E Large rolling containter (90 liter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F Large plastic drum (150-200 liter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G OTHER H (SPECIFY) Do not collect water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X F11 Number of containers Twice every day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Once every day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Once every other day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Once every third day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 OTHER 6 (SPECIFY) FLUSH OR POUR FLUSH TOILET FLUSH TO PIPED SEWER SYTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 FLUSH TO SEPTIC TANK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 FLUSH TO PIT LATRINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 FLUSH TO SOMEWHERE ELSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 FLUSH, DON'T KNOW WHERE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 PIT LATRINE VENTILATED IMPROVED PIT LATRIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 PIT LATRINE WITH SLAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 PIT LATRINE WITHOUT SLAB/OPEN PIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 COMPOSTING TOILET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 BUCKET TOILET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 HANGING TOILET/HANGING LATRINE 51 NO FACILITY/BUSH/FIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 F14 OTHER 96 (SPECIFY) YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 F14 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IF LESS THAN 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 OR MORE HOUSEHOLDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 62 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires Module F. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (Head of HH or Responsible Adult) NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES SKIP HANDWASHING F14 Please show me where members of your household most often wash their hands. F15 OBSERVATION ONLY: OBSERVE PRESENCE OF WATER AT THE PLACE FOR HANDWASHING. F15A OBSERVATION ONLY: OBSERVE WHETHER THE HANDWASHING STATION IS FIXED OR MOBILE F16 OBSERVATION ONLY: OBSERVE PRESENCE OF SOAP, DETERGENT, OR OTHER CLEANSING AGENT AT THE PLACE FOR HANDWASHING. F17 INSERT TIME MODULE FINISHED OBSERVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NOT OBSERVED, NOT IN DWELLING/YARD/PLOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NOT OBSERVED, NO PERMISSION TO SEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 NOT OBSERVED, OTHER REASON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 (SKIP TO F17) WATER IS AVAILABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 WATER IS NOT AVAILABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 HANDWASHING STATION IS FIXED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 HANDWASHING STATION IS MOBILE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SOAP OR DETERGENT (BAR, LIQUID, POWDER, PASTE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ASH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 MUD OR SAND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 OTHER CLEANSING AGENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 GO TO NEXT HOUR MINUTE MODULE Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 63 D00 INSERT TIME MODULE STARTED D01 CLUSTER CODE AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS D02 CHILD UNDER 6 YEARS OLD (B06= 1) FROM THE HOUSEHOLD ROSTER D03 CAREGIVER'S LINE NUMBER FROM THE HOUSEHOLD ROSTER (B07A) D04 OBTAIN CONSENT. DOES [NAME] AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY? D05 What is [CHILD NAME]'s sex? D06 I would like to ask you some questions about [CHILD'S NAME]. Does [CHILD'S NAME] have a health/vaccination card or other document with the birth date recorded? IF THE HEALTH/VACCINTATION CARD IS SHOWN AND THE RESPONDENT CONFIRMS THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT, RECORD THE DATE OF BIRTH AS DOCUMENTED ON THE CARD. RECORD THE DAY, MONTH, AND YEAR OF BIRTH. IF A DOCUMENT WITH THE BIRTHDATE IS NOT SHOWN THEN ASK: In what month and year was [CHILD'S NAME] born? What is [HIS/HER] birthday? RECORD BIRTH DAY, MONTH AND YEAR IF THE CAREGIVER DOES NOT KNOW THE EXACT DAY OF BIRTH, ENTER “98”, INDICATING “DON’T KNOW” FOR DAY. YOU DO NOT NEED TO PROBE FURTHER FOR DAY OF BIRTH. NOTE THAT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ENTER “DON’T KNOW” FOR MONTH OR YEAR OF BIRTH. D07 How old was [CHILD'S NAME] at [HIS/HER] last birthday? RECORD AGE IN COMPLETED YEARS D08 How many months old is [CHILD'S NAME]? RECORD AGE IN COMPLETED MONTHS CHECK D06, D07, AND D08 TO VERIFY CONSISTENCY A) IS THE YEAR RECORDED IN D06 CONSISTENT WITH THE AGE IN YEARS RECORDED IN D07? B) ARE YEAR AND MONTH OF BIRTH RECORDED IN D06 CONSISTENT WITH AGE IN MONTHS RECORDED IN D08? USE BIRTHDATE CONVERSION TABLE TO CHECK. IF THE ANSWER TO A OR B IS “NO‟ RESOLVE ANY INCONSISTENCIES. HOUR MINUTE HH FIRST ELIGIBLE CHILD SECOND ELIGIBLE CHILD THIRD ELIBIBLE CHILD FROM ROSTER FROM ROSTER FROM ROSTER NAME NAME NAME LINE NO. LINE NO. LINE NO. CHILD (B01) CHILD (B01) CHILD (B01) LINE NO. LINE NO. LINE NO. CAREGIVER CAREGIVER CAREGIVER YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO D57) (SKIP TO D57) (SKIP TO D57) NOT AVAILABLE . 3 NOT AVAILABLE . . . . 3 NOT AVAILABLE . . . . 3 MALE . . . . . . . . . . . 1 MALE . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 MALE . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 FEMALE . . . . . . . . . 2 FEMALE . . . . . . . . . . 2 FEMALE . . . . . . . . . . 2 DAY DAY DAY MONTH MONTH MONTH YEAR YEAR YEAR YEARS YEARS YEARS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS Module D. Children’s Feeding Practices and Diarrhea (Primary Caregivers) CLUST ER IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 64 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires FIRST ELIGIBLE CHILD SECOND ELIGIBLE CHILD THIRD ELIBIBLE CHILD FROM ROSTER FROM ROSTER FROM ROSTER NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS NAME NAME NAME EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING AND DIET OF MINIMUM DIVERSITY D14 CHECK D08: IS THE CHILD UNDER 60 MONTHS (5 YEARS)? CHECK D08: IS THE CHILD UNDER 24 MONTHS (2 YEARS)? Has [CHILD'S NAME] ever been breastfed? Was [CHILD'S NAME] breastfed yesterday during the day or at night? Sometimes babies are breastfed by another woman or given breast milk from another woman by spoon, cup, bottle, or some other way. This can happen if a mother cannot breastfeed her own baby for various reasons, such as the mother is sick or away, mastitis, etc. Did [CHILD'S NAME] consume breast milk in any of these ways yesterday during the day or at night? Now I would like to ask you about some medicines and vitamins that are sometimes given to infants. Was [CHILD'S NAME] given any vitamin drops or other medicines as drops yesterday during the day or at night? Was [CHILD'S NAME] given oral rehydration solution yesterday during the day or at night? Next I would like to ask you about some liquids that [CHILD'S NAME] may have had yesterday during the day or at night. Did [CHILD'S NAME] have: Plain water? Any kind of Infant formula? (e.g, Lactogen, Nestle, Nan) How many times yesterday during the day or at night did [CHILD'S NAME] consume any formula? Did [CHILD'S NAME] have canned, powdered or fresh milk, such as camel, goat or cow's milk? How many times yesterday during the day or at night did [CHILD'S NAME] consume any milk? YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (GO TO D02 FOR (GO TO D02 FOR (GO TO D02 ON NEW NEXT CHILD OR TO NEXT CHILD OR TO PAGE FOR NEXT CHILD D57 IF NO MORE D57 IF NO MORE OR TO D57 IF NO CHILDREN) CHILDREN) MORE CHILDREN) DON'T KNOW . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . 8 D15 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO D52) (SKIP TO D52) (SKIP TO D52) DON'T KNOW . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . 8 D16 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO D18) (SKIP TO D18) (SKIP TO D18) DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D17 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (SKIP TO D19) (SKIP TO D19) (SKIP TO D19) NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D18 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D19 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D20 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D21 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D22 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO D24) (SKIP TO D24) (SKIP TO D24) DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D23 TIMES . . . . TIMES . . . . TIMES . . . . D24 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO D26) (SKIP TO D26) (SKIP TO D26) DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D25 TIMES . . . . TIMES . . . . TIMES . . . . Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 65 FIRST ELIGIBLE CHILD SECOND ELIGIBLE CHILD THIRD ELIBIBLE CHILD FROM ROSTER FROM ROSTER FROM ROSTER NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS Did [CHILD'S NAME] have any juice or juice drinks (e.g., sodas, coke, fanta, sprite, appy, banana juice etc. ) Clear broth? Yogurt? How many times yesterday during the day or at night did [CHILD'S NAME] consume any yogurt? Did [CHILD'S NAME] have any THIN porridge? [insert local examples] LIMIT TO PORRIDGE MIXED VERY THIN OR THICK DRINKS MADE FROM CEREAL. THICKER LESS LIQUID PORRIDGE IS INCLUDED UNDER ITEM D33. Any other liquids such as black tea, rice water, or other liquids? Any other liquids? NAME NAME NAME D26 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D27 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D28 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES ................................. 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO D30) (SKIP TO D30) (SKIP TO D30) DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D29 TIMES . . . . TIMES . . . . TIMES . . . . D30 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D31 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D32 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D33 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D34 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D35 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D36A YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D36B YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D37A YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 D37B YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 Now I would like to ask you about (other) liquids or foods that (NAME) ate yesterday during the day or at night. I am interested in whether your child had the item even if it was combined with other foods. For example, if (NAME) ate a millet porridge made with a mixed vegetable sauce, you should reply yes to any food I ask about that was an ingredient in the porridge or sauce. Please do not include any food used in a small amount for seasoning or condiments (like chilies, spices, herbs, or fish powder), I will ask you about those foods separately. Yesterday, during the day or at night, did [CHILD'S NAME] eat any (ASK QUESTIONS D33A-D49)? Food made from grains, such as bread, rice, noodles, porridge, ugali, Nang'aria, Atap/ugali, Epeipe/maize, Echurukum/Ng'iimua/soughum, Lokiteiteyo, Mashisha, or Lkitege ? Pumpkin, carrots, squash, sweet potatoes or any other foods made from dark yellow or orange-fleshed vegetables or roots or tubers? White potatoes, white yams, manioc, cassava, arrowroot, or any other foods made from roots or tubers? Any dark green leafy vegetables such as sukumu wiki, kales, amaranths, spinach, bean leaves, cowpea leaves, pumpkin leaves, Akaideit/pumpkin leaves, traditional herbs (Seketet, Lmakutikuti, Lkinyil, Ljurman) or dishes made with dark green leafy vegetables? Any other vegetables, such as eggplant, okra, sweet peppers or other vegetables? Ripe mangoes, ripe papayas, pawpaw, or guava? Any other fruits such as oranges, wild berries, Ng'akator, Edome, Eng'oomo, Edung, Eng'ol, Ekadala, Ng'akalalio, Ebei, Ng'abulalae, Ng'apedur, Elamach, Epat, Ng'achokio, Ng'alam or other fruits? IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 66 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires FIRST ELIGIBLE CHILD SECOND ELIGIBLE CHILD THIRD ELIBIBLE CHILD FROM ROSTER FROM ROSTER FROM ROSTER NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS NAME NAME NAME D38A Any Lookot, Enyas, Ng'amorumoru, Emur/ghee, Edapal, Blood (Lodo) (from a cow or camel), liver, kidney, heart, blood or other organ meats from domesticated animals such as cow, camel, pig, lamb, goat, chicken, duck, or bbi ? D38B Any meat from domesticated animals, such as beef, camel meat, pork, lamb, goat, chicken, duck, or rabbit? D39A Any organs (liver, heart, kidney)from wild animals, such as game meat, bush rats, birds, wild pigeons, guinea fowl, deer, wild boar, wild goat? D39B Any flesh from wild animals, such as game meat, bush rats, birds, wild pigeons, guinea fowl, deer, wild boar, wild goat? D40 Eggs? D41 Fresh or dried fish, shellfish or seafood? D42 Any foods made from beans (white, brown, horse), peas, lentils, or other legumes such as chick peas, rape seed, linseed, sesame, sunflower, vetch soybean flour or nuts (groundnuts, groundnut flour)? D43 Any foods made from nuts and seeds such as pumpkin seeds, cashews, jackfruit, [local nuts and seeds] D44 Cheese, yogurt or other milk products? D45 Any oils, fats, butter or foods made with any of these? D46 Any sugary foods such as chocolates, sweets, candies, pastries, cakes, biscuits, Eminae, Ekaamit, Apinet, or Lchang'aro? D47 Condiments for flavor, such as chilies, spices, herbs, or fish powder? D48 Grubs, snails or insect such as white ants, grasshoppers, or locusts? D49 Foods made with red palm oil, red palm nut, or red palm nut pulp sauce? CHECK QUESTIONS D33-D49: YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . 8 IF "NO" TO ALL D50 IF "NO" TO ALL D50 IF "NO" TO ALL D50 IF AT LEAST ONE "YES" IF AT LEAST ONE "YES" IF AT LEAST ONE "YES" "DK" OR TO ALL D51 OR "DK" TO ALL D51 OR "DK" TO ALL D51 D50 Did [CHILD'S NAME] eat any solid, semi-solid, or or soft foods yesterday during the day or at night? IF "YES" PROBE: What kind of solid, semi-solid, or soft foods did [CHILD'S NAME] eat? D51 How many times did [child’s name] eat solid, semi-solid, or soft foods other than liquids yesterday during the day or at night? YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 GO BACK TO D33- GO BACK TO D33- GO BACK TO D33- D49 AND RECORD D49 AND RECORD D49 AND RECORD FOODS EATEN. FOODS EATEN. FOODS EATEN. THEN CONTINUE THEN CONTINUE THEN CONTINUE WITH D51. WITH D51. WITH D51. NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 GO TO D52 GO TO D52 GO TO D52 DON'T KNOW . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . 8 TIMES . . . . TIMES . . . . TIMES . . . . Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 67 FIRST ELIGIBLE CHILD SECOND ELIGIBLE CHILD THIRD ELIBIBLE CHILD FROM ROSTER FROM ROSTER FROM ROSTER NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS NAME NAME NAME DIARRHEA D52 Has [CHILD'S NAME] had diarrhea in the last 2 weeks? DIARRHEA IS DEFINED AS 3 OR MORE WATERY STOOLS THE TERM(S) USED FOR DIARRHEA SHOULD ENCOMPASS THE EXPRESSIONS USED FOR ALL FORMS OF DIARRHEA, INCLUDING BLOODY STOOLS (CONSISTENT WITH DYSENTRY), WATERY STOOLS, ETC. D53 Was there any blood in the stools? D54 Now I would like to know how much [CHILD'S NAME] was given to drink during the period that [HE/SHE] had diarrhea (including breastmilk). Was he/she given less than usual to drink, about the same amount, or more than usual to drink? IF LESS, PROBE: Was he/she given much less than usual to drink or somewhat less? D55 When [CHILD'S NAME] had diarrhea, was he/she given less than usual to eat, about the same amount, more than usual, or nothing to eat? IF LESS, PROBE: Was he/she given much less than usual to eat or somewhat less? D56 Was he/she given any of the following to drink at any time since he/she started having the diarrhea: a) A fluid made from a special packet called [LOCAL NAME FOR ORS PACKET]? A reconstituted ORS liquid provided through government b) health facilities? c) A government-recommended homemade sugar salt solution (SSS)? D57 INSERT TIME MODULE ENDED YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (GO TO D02 FOR (GO TO D02 FOR (GO TO D02 FOR NEXT CHILD OR TO NEXT CHILD OR TO NEXT CHILD OR TO D57 IF NO MORE D57 IF NO MORE D57 IF NO MORE CHILDREN) CHILDREN) CHILDREN) DON'T KNOW . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 MUCH LESS . . . . . . . 1 MUCH LESS . . . . . . . 1 MUCH LESS . . . . . . . 1 SOMEWHAT LESS…… 2 SOMEWHAT LESS…… 2 SOMEWHAT LESS…… 2 ABOUT THE SAME …. 3 ABOUT THE SAME …. 3 ABOUT THE SAME …. 3 MORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 MORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 MORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 NOTHING TO DRINK….. 5 NOTHING TO DRINK….. 5 NOTHING TO DRINK….. 5 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 MUCH LESS . . . . . . . 1 MUCH LESS . . . . . . . 1 MUCH LESS . . . . . . . 1 SOMEWHAT LESS……. 2 SOMEWHAT LESS……. 2 SOMEWHAT LESS……. 2 ABOUT THE SAME…… 3 ABOUT THE SAME…… 3 ABOUT THE SAME…… 3 MORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 MORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 MORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 STOPPED FOOD……… 5 STOPPED FOOD……… 5 STOPPED FOOD……… 5 NEVER GAVE FOOD…. 6 NEVER GAVE FOOD…. 6 NEVER GAVE FOOD…. 6 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . 8 YES NO DK YES NO DK YES NO DK FLUID FROM FLUID FROM FLUID FROM ORS PKT…… 1 2 8 ORS PKT……1 2 8 ORS PKT……1 2 8 ORS LIQUID 1 2 8 ORS LIQUID 1 2 8 ORS LIQUID 1 2 8 HOMEMADE HOMEMADE HOMEMADE FLUID (SSS) 1 2 8 FLUID (SSS) 1 2 8 FLUID (SSS) 1 2 8 HOUR MINUTE GO TO NEXT MODULE IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 68 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires WOMAN'S NAME WOMAN'S NAME WOMAN'S NAME NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ E00 INSERT TIME MODULE STARTED E01 CLUSTER CODE AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER E02 LINE NUMBER OF WOMAN 15-49 YEARS OF AGE FROM ROSTER (B09=1) E03 OBTAIN CONSENT. DOES [NAME] AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY? E04 In what month and year were you born? IF DON'T KNOW MONTH RECORD "98" IF DON'T KNOW YEAR RECORD "9998" E05 Please tell me how old you are. What was your age at your last birthday? RECORD AGE IN COMPLETED YEARS AND SKIP TO E06B. IF RESPONDENT CANNOT REMEMBER HOW OLD SHE IS, CIRCLE 98 AND ASK QUESTION E06A. E06A Are you between the ages of 15 and 49 years old? E06B CHECK E04, E05 AND E06A (IF APPLICABLE): IS THE RESPONDENT BETWEEN THE AGES OF 15 AND 49 YEARS? IF ANSWER IS 'NO' AND ANOTHER WOMAN IS INCLUDED, THAN QUESTIONS E02-E05 MUST BE REPEATED FOR THE NEW WOMAN. IF THE INFORMATION IN E04, E05 AND E06A CONFLICTS, DETERMINE WHICH IS MOST ACCURATE. WOMAN'S DIETARY DIVERSITY Now I would like to ask you about liquids or foods that you ate yesterday during the day or at night. I am interested in whether you had the item even if it was combined with other foods. For example, if you ate a millet porridge made with a mixed vegetable sauce, you should reply yes to any food I ask about that was an ingredient in the porridge or sauce. Please do not include any food used in a small amount for seasoning or condiments (like chilies, spices, herbs, or fish powder), I will ask you about those foods separately. Yesterday during the day or night did you drink/eat any [ASK QUESTIONS E07 to E27]? E07 Food made from grains, such as bread, rice, noodles, porridge, ugali, Nang'aria, Atap/ugali, Epeipe/maize, Echurukum/Ng'iimua/soughum, Lokiteiteyo, Mashisha, or Lkitege? E08 Pumpkin, carrots, squash, orange flesh sweet potatoes or or any other dark yellow or orange fleshed roots, tubers and vegetables? E09 White potatoes, white yams, manioc, cassava, arrowroot, or any other foods made from roots or tubers? E10 Any dark green leafy vegetables such as kales, amaranths, spinach, bean leaves, cowpea leaves, pumpkin leaves, Akaideit/pumpkin leaves, traditional herbs (Seketet, Lmakutikuti, Lkinyil, Ljurman), or dishes made with dark green leafy vegetables? E11 Any other vegetables, such as eggplant, okra, sweet peppers or other vegetables? E12 Ripe mangoes, ripe papayas, pawpaw or guava? HOUR HOUR HOUR MINUTE MINUTE MINUTE CLUSTER CLUSTER CLUSTER HH HH HH LINE LINE LINE NUMBER (B01) NUMBER (B01) NUMBER (B01) YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SKIP TO E65 SKIP TO E65 SKIP TO E65 NOT AVAILABLE . . . . . . . . 8 NOT AVAILABLE . . . . . . . . 8 NOT AVAILABLE . . . . . . . . 8 MONTH . . . . . . . . MONTH . . . . . . . . MONTH . . . . . . . . YEAR YEAR YEAR AGE IN YEARS AGE IN YEARS AGE IN YEARS (SKIP TO E06B) (SKIP TO E06B) (SKIP TO E06B) DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . 98 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . 98 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . 98 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF NO, THEN GO TO E65 IF NO, THEN GO TO E65 IF NO, THEN GO TO E65 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 E13 Any other fruits such as oranges, wild berries, Ng'akator, Edome, Eng'oomo, Edung, Eng'ol, Ekadala, Ng'akalalio, Ebei, Ng'abulalae, Ng'apedur, Elamach, Epat, Ng'achokio, or Ng'alam, other fruits? E14 Any Lookot, Enyas, Ng'amorumoru, Emur/ghee, Edapal, Blood (Lodo) (from a cow or camel), liver, kidney, heart, blood or other organ meats from domesticated animals such as cow, camel, pig, lamb, goat, chicken, duck, or rabbit? E15 Any meat from domesticated animals, such as beef, camel meat, pork, lamb, goat, chicken, duck, or rabbit? YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Module E. Women's Health, Nutritional Status, Dietary Diversity and Family Planning (All Women 15-49) Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 69 WOMAN'S NAME WOMAN'S NAME WOMAN'S NAME NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ Module E. Women's Health, Nutritional Status, Dietary Diversity and Family Planning (All Women 15-49) E16 Any organs (liver, heart, kidney)from wild animals, such as game meat, bush rats, birds, wild pigeons, guinea fowl, deer, wild boar, wild goat? E17 Any flesh from wild animals, such as game meat, bush rats, birds, wild pigeons, guinea fowl, deer, wild boar, wild goat? E18 Eggs? E19 Fresh,canned, or dried fish, shellfish or seafood? E20 Any foods made from beans (white, brown, horse), peas, lentils, or other legumes such as chick peas, rape seed, linseed, sesame, sunflower, vetch soybean flour or nuts (groundnuts, groundnut flour)? E21 Any foods made from nuts and seeds such as pumpkin seeds, cashews, jackfruit, [local nuts and seeds] E22 Milk, cheese, yogurt or other milk products? E23 Any oils, fats, butter or foods made with any of these? E24 Any sugary foods such as chocolates, sweets, candies, pastries, cakes, biscuits, Eminae, Ekaamit, Apinet, or Lchang'aro? E25 Condiments for flavor, such as chilies, spices, herbs, or fish powder? E26 Grubs, snails or insect such as white ants, grasshoppers, or locusts? E27 Foods made with red palm oil, red palm nut, or red palm nut pulp sauce? YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 E28 Now I would like to ask you about pregnancies and births you may have had. Are you currently pregnant? E29 Have you ever been pregnant? E30 Have you ever given birth? E31 When was the last time you gave birth to a boy or girl who was born alive? IF THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW THE BIRTHDATE ASK: Do you have a health/vaccination card for that child with the birthdate recorded? IF THE HEALTH/VACCINATION CARD IS SHOWN, RECORD THE DATE OF BIRTH AS DOCUMENTED ON THE CARD CHECK ANSWER TO QUESTION E31. DID THE RESPONDENT'S E32 LAST LIVE BIRTH OCCUR WITHIN THE PAST 5 YEARS, THAT IS, SINCE [INSERT MONTH OF INTERVIEW] ? E33 What is the name of your child who was born on (DATE INDICATED IN E31)? ADD LINE NUMBER (B01) FROM HH ROSTER. WRITE 00 IF CHILD NOT IN HH. HISTORY OF PREGNANCIES AND BIRTHS YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (SKIP TO E30) NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO E45) YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO E45) Date of Last Live Birth DAY..................... |___|___| If day is not known, enter '98' above MONTH................ |___|___| YEAR............ |___|___|___|___| IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF NO, THEN SKIP TO E45 NAME _____________________ LINE NUMBER (B01) |___|___| YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (SKIP TO E30) NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO E45) YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO E45) Date of Last Live Birth DAY..................... |___|___| If day is not known, enter '98' above MONTH................ |___|___| YEAR............ |___|___|___|___| IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF NO, THEN SKIP TO E45 NAME _______________________ LINE NUMBER (B01) |___|___| YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (SKIP TO E30) NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO E45) YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO E45) Date of Last Live Birth DAY..................... |___|___| If day is not known, enter '98' above MONTH................ |___|___| YEAR............ |___|___|___|___| IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF NO, THEN SKIP TO E45 NAME _______________________ LINE NUMBER (B01) |___|___| IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 70 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires Module E. Women's Health, Nutritional Status, Dietary Diversity and Family Planning (All Women 15-49) WOMAN'S NAME WOMAN'S NAME WOMAN'S NAME NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ ANTENATAL CARE E38 Did you see anyone for antenatal care during the pregnancy? E39 Whom did you see? Anyone else? E40 How many months pregnant were you when you first received antenatal care during this pregnancy? E41 How many times did you receive antenatal care during this pregnancy? FAMILY PLANNING E45 CHECK HOUSEHOLD ROSTER QUESTION B14 (MARITAL STATUS). IS PERSON MARRIED/LIVING Now I would like to ask about family planning - the various ways or methods a couple can use to delay or avoid a pregnancy. Have you ever heard of (METHOD)? E46 Female Sterilization. PROBE: Women can have an operation to avoid having any more children. E47 Male Sterilization. PROBE: Men can have an operation to avoid having any more children. E48 IUD. PROBE: Women can have a loop or coil placed inside them by a doctor or a nurse which can prevent pregnancy for one or more years. E49 Injectables. PROBE: Women can have an injection by a health provider that stops them from becoming pregnant for one or more months. E50 Implants. PROBE: Women can have one or more small rods placed in their upper arm by a doctor or nurse which can prevent pregnancy for one or more years. E51 Pill. PROBE: Women can take a pill every day to avoid becoming pregnant. E52 Male Condom. PROBE: Men can put a rubber sheath on their penis before sexual intercourse. E53 Female Condom. PROBE: Women can place a sheath in their vagina before sexual intercourse. E54 Diaphragm with spermicidal foam, cream or gel. PROBE: Women can apply a spermicide to a shallow, bendable cup and place it in their vagina before sexual intercourse. E55 Emergency Contraception. PROBE: As an emergency measure, within three days after they have unprotected sexual intercourse, women can take special pills to prevent pregnancy. E56 Standard Days Method. PROBE: A woman uses a string of colored beads to know the days she can get pregnant. On the days she can get pregnant, she uses a condom or does not have sexual intercourse. YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO E45) (SKIP TO E45) (SKIP TO E45) HEALTH PERSONNEL HEALTH PERSONNEL HEALTH PERSONNEL DOCTOR ................................... A DOCTOR ................................... A DOCTOR ................................... A NURSE ................................... B NURSE ................................... B NURSE ................................... B MIDWIFE ................................... C MIDWIFE ................................... C MIDWIFE ................................... C CLINICAL OFFICIER ............... D CLINICAL OFFICIER ............... D CLINICAL OFFICIER ............... D SKILLED BIRTH ATTENDANT E SKILLED BIRTH ATTENDANT E SKILLED BIRTH ATTENDANT E OTHER PERSON OTHER PERSON OTHER PERSON TRADITIONAL BIRTH TRADITIONAL BIRTH TRADITIONAL BIRTH ATTENDANT ........................... F ATTENDANT ........................... F ATTENDANT ........................... F OTHER PERSON OTHER PERSON OTHER PERSON ............... X ............... X ............... X (SPECIFY) (SPECIFY) (SPECIFY) MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS NUMBER OF TIMES NUMBER OF TIMES NUMBER OF TIMES IF YES, THEN CONTINUE IF YES, THEN CONTINUE IF YES, THEN CONTINUE IF NO, THEN SKIP TO E65 IF NO, THEN SKIP TO E65 IF NO, THEN SKIP TO E65 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 E57 Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM). PROBE: Up to six months after childbirth, before the menstrual period has returned, women use a method requiring frequent breastfeeding day and night. E58 Have you heard of any other modern methods that women or men can use to avoid pregnancy? ALL METHODS LISTED IN QUESTIONS E46-E57 ARE CONSIDERED MODERN METHODS. YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SPECIFY_________________ SPECIFY_________________ SPECIFY_________________ NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 71 E59 E60 E61 CONTRACEPTIVE PREVALENCE Which method are you using? E65 THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR THIS WOMAN. E62 CHECK ANSWER TO QUESTION E28. IS THE WOMAN CURRENTLY PREGNANT? E64 Did you or your partner use any of these modern contraceptive methods in the past 12 months? E63 Are you or your partner currently doing something or using any method to delay or avoid getting pregnant? When making this decision with your (husband/partner), would you say that your opinion is more important, equally important, or less important than your (husband’s/partner’s) opinion? Who usually makes the decision on whether or not you should use contraception, you, your (husband/partner), you and your (husband/partner) jointly, or someone else? RECORD ALL MENTIONED. NOTE: MOON BEADS ARE LOCALLY USED FOR STANDARD DAYS METHOD WOMAN'S NAME WOMAN'S NAME WOMAN'S NAME NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ Module E. Women's Health, Nutritional Status, Dietary Diversity and Family Planning (All Women 15-49) YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SKIP TO E62 SKIP TO E62 SKIP TO E62 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 RESPONDENT . . . . . . . . . . . 1 RESPONDENT . . . . . . . . . . . 1 RESPONDENT . . . . . . . . . . . 1 HUSBAND/PARTNER . . . . . 2 HUSBAND/PARTNER . . . . . 2 HUSBAND/PARTNER . . . . . 2 RESPONDENT JOINTLY WITH RESPONDENT JOINTLY WITH RESPONDENT JOINTLY WITH HUSBAND/PARTNER . . . . . 3 HUSBAND/PARTNER . . . . . 3 HUSBAND/PARTNER . . . . . 3 SOMEONE ELSE . . . . . . . . 4 SOMEONE ELSE . . . . . . . . 4 SOMEONE ELSE . . . . . . . . 4 OTHER__________________ 5 OTHER__________________ 5 OTHER__________________ 5 SPECIFY SPECIFY SPECIFY 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 IF YES, THEN SKIP TO E65 IF YES, THEN SKIP TO E65 IF YES, THEN SKIP TO E65 IF NO, THEN CONTINUE. IF NO, THEN CONTINUE. IF NO, THEN CONTINUE. YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO E65) (SKIP TO E65) (SKIP TO E65) HOUR MINUTE GO TO NEXT MODULE E66 INSERT TIME MODULE ENDED FEMALE STERILIZATION ................A MALE STERILIZATION ....................B IUD...................................................C INJECTABLES .................................D IMPLANTS........................................E PILL..................................................F CONDOM.........................................G FEMALE CONDOM...........................H EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION .....I STANDARD DAYS METHOD ..........J LACTATIONAL AMEN. METHOD.....K RHYTHM METHOD...........................L WITHDRAWAL ...............................M OTHER MODERN METHOD .............N OTHER TRADITIONAL METHOD......O FEMALE STERILIZATION ................A MALE STERILIZATION ....................B IUD...................................................C INJECTABLES .................................D IMPLANTS........................................E PILL..................................................F CONDOM.........................................G FEMALE CONDOM...........................H EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION .....I STANDARD DAYS METHOD ..........J LACTATIONAL AMEN. METHOD.....K RHYTHM METHOD...........................L WITHDRAWAL ...............................M OTHER MODERN METHOD .............N OTHER TRADITIONAL METHOD......O FEMALE STERILIZATION ................A MALE STERILIZATION ....................B IUD...................................................C INJECTABLES .................................D IMPLANTS........................................E PILL..................................................F CONDOM.........................................G FEMALE CONDOM...........................H EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION .....I STANDARD DAYS METHOD ..........J LACTATIONAL AMEN. METHOD.....K RHYTHM METHOD...........................L WITHDRAWAL ...............................M OTHER MODERN METHOD .............N OTHER TRADITIONAL METHOD......O GO TO E02A FOR NEXT WOMAN OR IF NO MORE WOMEN, GO TO E64. GO TO E02A FOR NEXT WOMAN OR IF NO MORE WOMEN, GO TO E64. GO TO E02A FOR NEXT WOMAN OR IF NO MORE WOMEN, GO TO E64. MORE IMPORTANT................ EQUALLY IMPORTANT.......... LESS IMPORTANT.................. SKIP TO E62 SKIP TO E62 SKIP TO E62 MORE IMPORTANT................ EQUALLY IMPORTANT.......... LESS IMPORTANT.................. MORE IMPORTANT................ EQUALLY IMPORTANT.......... LESS IMPORTANT.................. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 72 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires Module J. Gender - Cash (All Men and Women in a Union who Earned Cash) FIRST ELIGIBLE PERSON SECOND ELIGIBLE PERSON THIRD ELIBIBLE PERSON NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS FROM ROSTER FROM ROSTER FROM ROSTER J00 INSERT TIME MODULE STARTED J01 CLUSTER CODE AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER J02 MAN/WOMAN WHO EARNED CASH (B13 = 1 OR 2) FROM THE HOUSEHOLD ROSTER J03A CHECK HOUSEHOLD ROSTER QUESTION B14 (MARITAL STATUS). IS RESPONDENT MARRIED OR LIVING TOGETHER (B14=1)? J03B OBTAIN CONSENT. DOES [NAME] AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY? J04 RESPONDENT'S SEX FROM HOUSEHOLD ROSTER ( J05 RESPONDENT'S AGE FROM HOUSEHOLD ROSTER (B05) J06 Have you done any work in the past 12 months? READ DEFINITION OF WORK FROM MODULE B. J06a HAVE YOU PERFORMED ANY OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF WORK? READ AND SELECT ALL THAT APPLY J07 During the past 12 months, were you usually paid in cash or kind for this work or were you not paid at all? J08 When you were paid in cash for this work, was the payment usually made directly to you, to your spouse/partner or to someone else in your household? IF RESPONSE IS SOMEONE ELSE IN HH OR OTHER, THEN SPECIFY THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE RESPONDENT. J09A Do you usually discuss with someone about how the cash you earn will be used? HOUR MINUTE 1 1 1 2 2 2 GO TO J14 GO TO J14 GO TO J14 1 1 1 2 2 2 GO TO J14 GO TO J14 GO TO J14 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 GO TO J14 GO TO J14 GO TO J14 Farming/crop production Farming/crop production A A A Livestock production/ Livestock production/ Livestock production/ B B B C C C D D D E E E Sale of wild/bush product Sale of wild/bush product Sale of wild/bush product F F F G G G Petty trade - selling other Petty trade - selling other Petty trade -selling other H H H Petty trade - selling own Petty trade - selling own Petty trade - selling own I I I Self-employment / own Self-employment / own Self-employment / own J J J Self-employment / own Self-employment / own Self-employment / own K K K Rental of land, house, Rental of land, house, Rental of land, house, L L L 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 GO TO J14 GO TO J14 GO TO J14 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 (SPECIFY) (SPECIFY) (SPECIFY) OTHER 4 OTHER 4 OTHER 4 (SPECIFY) (SPECIFY) (SPECIFY) 1 1 1 2 2 2 (SKIP TO J10) (SKIP TO J10) (SKIP TO J10) J09B With whom do you usually talk about how the cash you earn will be used? CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY. FOR RESPONSES B AND C, SPECIFY THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE RESPONDENT. A A A B B B (SPECIFY RELATIONSHIP) (SPECIFY RELATIONSHIP) (SPECIFY RELATIONSHIP) OTHER .................... C OTHER .................... C OTHER .................... C (SPECIFY) (SPECIFY) (SPECIFY) Honey prod. and sales......................... products (e.g. local beer)..................... products (e.g. oil, sugar, etc.).............. business -agri...................................... business - non-agri............................. NOT PAID............................................ .................... SOMEONE ELSE IN HH...................... LINE NO. (B01) LINE NO. (B01) Farming/crop production and sales............................................. fattening and sales............................... Agri wage labor.................................... Non-agri wage labor............................. Salaried work....................................... (e.g. charcoal, firewood)..................... rooms................................................... Agri wage labor................................. Non-agri wage labor.......................... Salaried work..................................... Honey prod. and sales...................... Salaried work..................................... and sales........................................... fattening and sales........................... (e.g. charcoal, firewood)................... products (e.g. oil, sugar, etc.)............ products (e.g. local beer).................. business - agri................................... business - non-agri............................ rooms............................................... business - non-agri............................ rooms................................................ (e.g. charcoal, firewood).................... Honey prod. and sales....................... products (e.g. oil, sugar, etc.)............ products (e.g. local beer)................... business - agri................................... and sales........................................... fattening and sales............................ NOT PAID......................................... CLUSTER HH MALE................................................... FEMALE............................................... MALE................................................. FEMALE............................................ MALE................................................. FEMALE............................................ YES . ................................................... NO........................................................ YES . ................................................ NO..................................................... YES . ................................................. LINE NO. (B01) YES...................................................... NO........................................................ NOT AVAILABLE................................. NOT PAID.......................................... ..................... .................... SPOUSE/PARTNER......................... SOMEONE ELSE IN HH................... SPOUSE/PARTNER.......................... SOMEONE ELSE IN HH................... YES.................................................... NO..................................................... RESPONDENT.................................... SPOUSE/PARTNER............................ SOMEONE ELSE IN HH...................... RESPONDENT................................. SPOUSE/PARTNER......................... SOMEONE ELSE IN HH................... RESPONDENT.................................. SPOUSE/PARTNER.......................... SOMEONE ELSE IN HH................... YEARS................................. YEARS.............................. NO..................................................... YES................................................... NO..................................................... NOT AVAILABLE.............................. YES.................................................... NO..................................................... NOT AVAILABLE............................... YEARS............................... YES . ................................................... NO........................................................ YES . ................................................ NO..................................................... YES . ................................................. NO..................................................... CASH ONLY........................................ CASH AND KIND................................. IN KIND ONLY..................................... CASH ONLY...................................... Agri wage labor.................................. Non-agri wage labor........................... CASH ONLY...................................... CASH AND KIND.............................. IN KIND ONLY.................................. CASH AND KIND............................... IN KIND ONLY................................... SPOUSE/PARTNER............................ YES...................................................... NO........................................................ YES................................................... NO..................................................... Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 73 Module J. Gender - Cash (All Men and Women in a Union who Earned Cash) FIRST ELIGIBLE PERSON SECOND ELIGIBLE PERSON NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS FROM ROSTER FROM ROSTER THIRD ELIBIBLE PERSON FROM ROSTER 1 2 YOURSELF AND 3 YOURSELF AND 4 (SPECIFY) OTHER 5 (SPECIFY) IF YES CONTINUE IF NO GO TO J14. .................... OTHER JOINTLY............................... YOURSELF....................................... SPOUSE/PARTNER.......................... SPOUSE/PARTNER JOINTLY.......... J10 1 1 2 2 YOURSELF AND YOURSELF AND READ ALL RESPONSES AND SELECT ONLY ONE. 3 3 YOURSELF AND YOURSELF AND 4 4 (SPECIFY) (SPECIFY) OTHER 5 OTHER 5 (SPECIFY) (SPECIFY) IF YES CONTINUE IF YES CONTINUE IF NO GO TO J14. IF NO GO TO J14. CHECK RESPONSE TO QUESTION J04. IS THE RESPONDENT A FEMALE? Who usually decides how the cash you earn will be used? OTHER JOINTLY.............................. FOR RESPONSES #4 AND #5, SPECIFY THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE RESPONDENT. YOURSELF.......................................... SPOUSE/PARTNER............................ OTHER JOINTLY................................. SPOUSE/PARTNER JOINTLY............ .................... ..................... YOURSELF....................................... SPOUSE/PARTNER......................... SPOUSE/PARTNER JOINTLY......... J11 Has your spouse/partner done any work in the past 12 months? READ DEFINITION OF WORK FROM MODULE B. YES . ................................................... 1 NO........................................................ 2 GO TO J14 DON'T KNOW...................................... 8 YES . ................................................ 1 NO..................................................... 2 GO TO J14 DON'T KNOW................................... 8 YES . ................................................. 1 NO..................................................... 2 GO TO J14 DON'T KNOW.................................... 8 J12 J13 J14 J15 During the past 12 months, was he usually paid in cash or kind for this work or was he not paid at all? Who usually decides how the cash he earns will be used? READ ALL RESPONSES AND SELECT ONLY ONE. FOR RESPONSES #4 AND #5, SPECIFY THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE RESPONDENT. THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR THIS CASH EARNER. INSERT TIME MODULE ENDED CASH ONLY........................................ 1 CASH AND KIND................................. 2 IN KIND ONLY..................................... 3 GO TO J14 NOT PAID............................................ 4 YOURSELF.......................................... 1 SPOUSE/PARTNER............................ 2 YOURSELF AND SPOUSE/PARTNER JOINTLY............ 3 YOURSELF AND OTHER JOINTLY................................. 4 (SPECIFY) OTHER .................... 5 (SPECIFY) GO TO J02 FOR NEXT CASH EARNER, OR J15 IF NO MORE CASH EARNERS HOUR CASH ONLY...................................... 1 CASH AND KIND.............................. 2 IN KIND ONLY.................................. 3 GO TO J14 NOT PAID......................................... 4 YOURSELF....................................... 1 SPOUSE/PARTNER......................... 2 YOURSELF AND SPOUSE/PARTNER JOINTLY......... 3 YOURSELF AND OTHER JOINTLY.............................. 4 (SPECIFY) OTHER ..................... 5 (SPECIFY) GO TO J02 FOR NEXT CASH EARNER, OR J15 IF NO MORE CASH EARNERS MINUTE `.......................................................... 1 CASH AND KIND............................... 2 IN KIND ONLY................................... 3 GO TO J14 NOT PAID.......................................... 4 YOURSELF....................................... 1 SPOUSE/PARTNER.......................... 2 YOURSELF AND SPOUSE/PARTNER JOINTLY.......... 3 YOURSELF AND OTHER JOINTLY............................... 4 (SPECIFY) OTHER .................... 5 (SPECIFY) GO TO J02 FOR NEXT CASH EARNER, OR J15 IF NO MORE CASH EARNERS GO TO NEXT MODULE IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 74 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires ACCESS TO AND DECISIONS ABOUT CREDIT K00 INSERT TIME MODULE STARTED K01 CLUSTER AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER K02 RESPONDENT LINE NUMBER FROM THE HOUSEHOLD ROSTER K03A CHECK HOUSEHOLD ROSTER QUESTION B1 (MARITAL STATUS). IS RESPONDENT MARRIED OR LIVING TOGETHER (B14=1)? K03B OBTAIN CONSENT. DOES [NAME] AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY? K04 RESPONDENT'S SEX FROM HOUSEHOLD ROSTER (B04) K05 RESPONDENT'S AGE FROM HOUSEHOLD ROSTER (B05) HOUR MINUTE CLUSTER HH LINE NUMBER YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SKIP TO K12 YES . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . 2 SKIP TO K12 NOT AVAILABLE 3 MALE . . . . . . . . . . 1 FEMALE . . . . . . . 2 YEARS YES, CASH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A YES, IN-KIND . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . B . . . . B YES, CASH AND IN-KIND . . 3 . . . . C . . . . C NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 D D DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . X YES, CASH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A YES, IN-KIND . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . B . . . . B YES, CASH AND IN-KIND . . 3 . . . . C . . . . C NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 D D DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . X YES, CASH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A YES, IN-KIND . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . B . . . . B YES, CASH AND IN-KIND . . 3 . . . . C . . . . C NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 D D DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . X YES, CASH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A YES, IN-KIND . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . B . . . . B YES, CASH AND IN-KIND . . 3 . . . . C . . . . C NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 D D DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . X YES, CASH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A YES, IN-KIND . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . B . . . . B YES, CASH AND IN-KIND . . 3 . . . . C . . . . C NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 D D DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . X YES, CASH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A YES, IN-KIND . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . B . . . . B YES, CASH AND IN-KIND . . 3 . . . . C . . . . C NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 D D DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . X GO TO K09 YES, CASH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A YES, IN-KIND . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . B . . . . B YES, CASH AND IN-KIND . . 3 . . . . C . . . . C NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 D D DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . X GO TO K09 SELF SELF PARTNER/SPOUSE PARTNER/SPOUSE OTHER HH MEMBER SELF SELF PARTNER/SPOUSE PARTNER/SPOUSE NOT APPLICABLE OTHER NON-HH MEMBER . . OTHER NON-HH MEMBER . . NOT APPLICABLE OTHER HH MEMBER OTHER NON-HH MEMBER . . OTHER NON-HH MEMBER . . NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE GO TO NEXT SOURCE SELF SELF PARTNER/SPOUSE PARTNER/SPOUSE OTHER HH MEMBER OTHER HH MEMBER OTHER NON-HH MEMBER . . OTHER NON-HH MEMBER . . NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE GO TO NEXT SOURCE OTHER NON-HH MEMBER . . OTHER NON-HH MEMBER . . NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE GO TO NEXT SOURCE OTHER HH MEMBER OTHER HH MEMBER SELF SELF PARTNER/SPOUSE PARTNER/SPOUSE OTHER HH MEMBER OTHER HH MEMBER OTHER NON-HH MEMBER . . OTHER NON-HH MEMBER . . NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE GO TO NEXT SOURCE SELF SELF PARTNER/SPOUSE PARTNER/SPOUSE OTHER HH MEMBER OTHER HH MEMBER OTHER HH MEMBER OTHER NON-HH MEMBER . . OTHER NON-HH MEMBER . . NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE GO TO NEXT SOURCE Now I’d like to ask about your household’s experience with borrowing money or other items in the past 12 months.” A Non-governmental organization (NGO) B Informal lender C Formal lender (bank/financial institution) D Friends or relatives E Group based micro-finance or lending including Village Savings and Loan Association (VSLAs)/ Savings and Credit Cooperative Organization (SACCOs) F Informal credit/savings groups such as merry-go￾rounds, tontines, funeral societies, etc. G Mobile-based lending/digital loan (e.g., M￾Pesa//M-Shwari, Airtel kenya) Has anyone in your household taken any loans or borrowed cash/in-kind from [SOURCE] in the past 12 months? Who made the decision to borrow from [SOURCE]? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY Who makes the decision about what to do with the money/ item borrowed from [SOURCE]? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY SELF SELF PARTNER/SPOUSE PARTNER/SPOUSE OTHER HH MEMBER CODE LENDING SOURCE NAME K06 K07 K08 MODULE K. ACCESS TO CREDIT AND GROUP MEMBERSHIP (All Women and Men ages in a Union) 4 SELF SELF PARTNER/SPOUSE PARTNER/SPOUSE OTHER HH MEMBER OTHER HH MEMBER OTHER NON-HH MEMBER . . OTHER NON-HH MEMBER . . NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 75 GROUP MEMBERSHIP YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW 8 HOUR MINUTE GO TO NEXT MODULE SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT Now I'm going to ask some questions about different groups or organizations that may exist in your community A Agricultural/livestock/fisheries producer’s group (including marketing groups) B Water users’ group C Forest users’ group D Credit or microfinance group including Savings and Credit Cooperative Organization (SACCOs)/merry-go-rounds/ Village Savings and Loan Association (VSLAs) E Mutual help or insurance group (including burial societies) F Trade and business association G Civic groups (people working together to improve their community) or charitable group (people working together to help people in need) H Local government I Religious group J Other group ONLY INCLUDE A GROUP HERE IF IT DOES NOT FIT INTO ONE OF THE OTHER CATEGORIES K Any other formal or informal organization (SPECIFY)______________________ K11 INSERT TIME MODULE ENDED Is there a [GROUP] in your community? Are youa member of this [GROUP]? SKIP TO NEXT SKIP TO NEXT CODE GROUP CATEGORIES K09 K10 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 76 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires Module G. Agriculture (All Farmers) G00 INSERT TIME MODULE STARTED G01 CLUSTER CODE AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER HOUR MINUTE CLUSTER HH NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS NAME _______________________________ NAME _______________________________ NAME ______________________________ G02A FARMER FROM THE HOUSEHOLD ROSTER (B11 = 1) G02B FARMER'S SEX FROM THE HOUSEHOLD ROSTER (B04) G03 OBTAIN CONSENT. DOES [NAME] AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY? G04 Do you have access to a plot of land (even if very small) over which you make decisions about what will be grown, OR how it will be grown, OR how to dispose/store/sell the harvest? VERIFY THAT RESPONDENT UNDERSTANDS THAT HAVING “ACCESS” AND MAKING “DECISIONS” OVER A PLOT OF LAND DOES NOT REQUIRE “LEGAL OWNERSHIP” OF THE LAND. A PERSON CAN HAVE ACCESS AND MAKE DECISIONS OVER A PLOT OF LAND (E.G., A SMALL VEGETABLE GARDEN) EVEN IF HE/SHE DOES NOT LEGALLY OWN THE LAND. IF THERE IS JOINT DECISION-MAKING POWER OVER ONE SINGLE PLOT OF LAND (OR SET OF ANIMALS), ALL FARMERS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE DECISION MAKING SHOULD BE INTERVIEWED. G04A What is the tenure of the land over which you make decisions? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY. G04B What was your farm size (the largest total area of your farmland) in any cropping season in the past 12 months? INCLUDE LAND THAT IS OWNED, RENTED OR SHARE CROPPED LINE NO. LINE NO. LINE NO. (B01) (B01) (B01) MALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 MALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 MALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 FEMALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 FEMALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 FEMALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NOT AVAILABLE . . . . . . . 3 NOT AVAILABLE . . . . . . . 3 NOT AVAILABLE . . . . . . . . . 3 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 OWNED WITH WRITTEN OWNED WITH WRITTEN OWNED WITH WRITTEN 1 1 1 2 2 2 RENTED WITH WRITTEN RENTED WITH WRITTEN RENTED WITH WRITTEN 3 3 3 4 4 4 SHARECROPPED WITH WRITTEN SHARECROPPED WITH WRITTEN SHARECROPPED WITH WRITTEN 3 3 3 4 4 4 STATE/COMMUNAL LAND USED STATE/COMMUNAL LAND USED STATE/COMMUNAL LAND USED 5 5 5 STATE/COMMUNAL LAND USED STATE/COMMUNAL LAND USED STATE/COMMUNAL LAND USED 6 6 6 OCCUPIED/SQUATTED WITHOUT OCCUPIED/SQUATTED WITHOUT OCCUPIED/SQUATTED WITHOUT 7 7 7 8 8 8 (SKIP TO G05) (SKIP TO G05) (SKIP TO G05) ● ● ● AREA AREA AREA 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 G05 Do you have animals and/or aquaculture products over which you make decisions about their management OR how to dispose/store/sell of the production? CHECK ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS G04 AND G05. IS THE ANSWER TO QUESTION G04 OR G05 "YES"? YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF NO, SKIP TO G22. IF NO, SKIP TO G22. IF NO, SKIP TO G22. FIRST FARMER REGISTER NAME, SEX AND LINE NUMBER FROM THE HOUSEHOLD ROSTER FOR THE FIRST FARMER (B14=1). START WITH QUESTION G02 FOR THE FIRST FARMER. IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE FARMER IN THE HOUSEHOLD THEN INTERVIEW ALL ADDITIONAL FARMERS AS NEEDED. IF THE FARMER IS ABSENT AFTER THREE TRIES AN ALTERNATE RESPONDENT MAY BE INTERVIEWED ONLY IF HE/SHE IS KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT THE FARMER'S AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND DECISIONS. SECOND FARMER THIRD FARMER (SKIP TO G05) (SKIP TO G05) (SKIP TO G05) DOCUMENTATION.............................................. OWNED WITHOUT WRITTEN OWNED WITHOUT WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION.......................................... DOCUMENTATION.......................................... DOCUMENTATION.......................................... RENTED WITHOUT WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION.......................................... DOCUMENTATION.......................................... SHARECROPPED WITHOUT WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION.......................................... WITH WRITTEN AGREEMENT ....................... WITHOUT WRITTEN AGREEMENT ............... PERMISSION................................................... SQUARE METERS........................................... HECTARES...................................................... HECTARES......................................................... DOCUMENTATION.......................................... OWNED WITHOUT WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION.......................................... DOCUMENTATION.......................................... RENTED WITHOUT WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION.......................................... DOCUMENTATION.......................................... SHARECROPPED WITHOUT WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION.......................................... WITH WRITTEN AGREEMENT ....................... DOCUMENTATION.............................................. DOCUMENTATION.............................................. RENTED WITHOUT WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION.............................................. DOCUMENTATION.............................................. SHARECROPPED WITHOUT WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION.............................................. WITH WRITTEN AGREEMENT .......................... WITHOUT WRITTEN AGREEMENT .................. PERMISSION...................................................... NONE OF THESE................................................ SQUARE METERS........................................... ACRES............................................................. OTHER (SPECIFY)........................................... WITHOUT WRITTEN AGREEMENT ............... ACRES................................................................ OTHER (SPECIFY).............................................. HECTARES...................................................... PERMISSION................................................... NONE OF THESE............................................. SQUARE METERS.............................................. NONE OF THESE............................................. ACRES............................................................. OTHER (SPECIFY)........................................... (SKIP TO G22) (SKIP TO G22) (SKIP TO G22) Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 77 NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS NAME _______________________________ NAME _______________________________ NAME ______________________________ FIRST FARMER SECOND FARMER THIRD FARMER FINANCIAL SERVICES G07 Did you take any agricultural credit, in cash or in kind, in the [PAST 12 MONTHS]? PROBES: Agri-dealers, contract farming, village savings and credit groups, farmers group MFI Bank etc G08 Did you save any cash in the [PAST 12 MONTHS]? PROBES: village savings and credit group, MFI, cooperatives, bank, mobile banking, etc. G09 Some people insure their agricultural production against negative unexpected circumstances, such as drought, floods, and pests by paying for this service. Did you buy agricultural insurance in the [PAST 12 MONTHS] ? YES ............................................................. 1 YES ............................................................. 1 YES ................................................................ 1 NO ............................................................. 2 NO ............................................................. 2 NO ................................................................ 2 YES ............................................................. 1 YES ............................................................. 1 YES ................................................................ 1 NO ............................................................. 2 NO ............................................................. 2 NO ................................................................ 2 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A B C D E F Y YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A B C D E Y IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF NO, SKIP TO G17. IF NO, SKIP TO G17. IF NO, SKIP TO G17. COWPEAS - REPEAT QUESTIONS G13-G16 FOR EACH CROP SELECTED BY THE ACTIVITY G13a In the past 12 months, did you plant any COWPEAS in the plots over which you make decisions? G14a Did you use any of these practices for cultivation of the COWPEAS in the [PAST 12 MONTHS] ? CIRCLE ALL PRACTICES THAT ARE MENTIONED, IF NONE USED, CIRCLE Y. G15a Did you store the cowpeas that you harvested? G16a Did you use any of these methods to store the cowpeas in the [PAST 12 MONTHS] ? CIRCLE ALL PRACTICES THAT ARE MENTIONED, IF NONE USED, CIRCLE Y. YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A B C D E F G H I J K L Y YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DID NOT HARVEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DID NOT HARVEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DID NOT HARVEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A B C D E Y (SKIP TO G13B) (SKIP TO G13B) A B C D E F Y (SKIP TO G10A) CROP ROTATION (ROTATING GRAINS WITH NITROGEN FIXING LEGUMES) ..................................................................................................................... KITCHEN GARDENS USING SUNKEN PITS............................................................................................................................................................................. USE OF ORGANIC MANURE..................................................................................................................................................................................................... DID NOT USE ANY OF THESE PRACTICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS......................................................................................................................................... (SKIP TO G10A) USE OF DRIP OR SPRINKLER IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGIES............................................................................................................................................... USE OF FLOOD-BASED FARMING TECHNOLOGIES (SPATE IRRIGATION) ......................................................................................................................... (SKIP TO G12) (SKIP TO G12) SOIL TESTING............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ PRODUCTION PLANNING AND CROP ROTATION IN IRRIGATION SCHEMES...................................................................................................................... USE OF DROUGHT EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS OR INFORMATION................................................................................................................................... VALUE CHAIN INTERVENTIONS USE OF RAINWATER HARVESTING TECHNOLOGIES (E.G. WATER PANS, ROCK/ROOF CATCHMENT).......................................................................... SELLING PRODUCTS THROUGH COMMUNITY FARMER ASSOCIATIONS .......................................................................................................................... Now I want to ask you about farming and livestock practices about which you make decisions. This includes practices about crops, animals, and aquaculture products. G10 Do you cultivate any crops or raise/buy livestock with the specific intention to sell or resell to earn income? G11 Which of the following activities related to farming and animal husbandry have you practiced or received services for during the [PAST 12 MONTHS]? CIRCLE ALL PRACTICES THAT ARE MENTIONED, IF NONE USED, CIRCLE Y. G10a Do you produce fodder with the specific intention to sell or resell to earn income? G11a Which of the following activities related to fodder production have you practiced or received services for during the [PAST 12 MONTHS]? CIRCLE ALL PRACTICES THAT ARE MENTIONED, IF NONE USED, CIRCLE Y. CHECK ANSWER TO QUESTION G04. G12 IS THE ANSWER TO QUESTION G04 "YES"? (SKIP TO G10A) DID NOT PRACTICE ANY OF THESE ACTIVITIES IN PAST 12 MONTHS................................................................................................................................ A B C D E F Y A B C D E F Y SEEDLING PRODUCTION AND TRANSPLANTATION.............................................................................................................................................................. (SKIP TO G13B) (SKIP TO G13B) (SKIP TO G13B) USE OF IMPROVED RECORD KEEPING, BUDGETING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT..................................................................................................... A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y BULKING.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (SKIP TO G12) USE OF TRAINING AND EXTENSION SERVICES.................................................................................................................................................................... SORTING AND GRADING.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... CONTRACT FARMING............................................................................................................................................................................................................... USE OF IMPROVED PASTURE INPUTS (E.G., QUALITY SEEDS)........................................................................................................................................... USE OF MECHANIZED PASTURE HARVESTING AND BALING TECHNOLOGIES................................................................................................................. CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF HAY STORES BY FARMER ORGANIZATIONS...................................................................................................................... USE OF FODDER SEEDS.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... USE OF HARVESTING, DRYING, PACKAGING, STORAGE, AND MARKETING TECHNOLOGIES......................................................................................... (SKIP TO G13B) AFLATOXIN PREVENTION AND CONTROL.............................................................................................................................................................................. USE OF ALUMINIUM CANS, CRATES, OTHER FOOD GRADE CONTAINERS DURING TRANSPORTATION....................................................................... USE OF WELL-EQUIPPED FOOD STORAGE STRUCTURES (RODENT PROOF; PROPER AIR CIRCULATION)................................................................. DID NOT PRACTICE ANY OF THESE ACTIVITIES IN PAST 12 MONTHS................................................................................................................................ A B C D E Y A B C D E Y A B C D E Y IMPROVED/CERTIFIED SEED…..................................................................................................... ......................................................................................... APPLICATION OF INOCULANT................................................................................................................................................................................................. DID NOT USE ANY OF THESE PRACTICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS......................................................................................................................................... A B C D E Y A B C D E Y A B C D E Y SOLAR DRYING FOR GRAINS AND PULSES .......................................................................................................................................................................... TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY CONTROL (SHED NETS, AIR CONDITION, FANS)............................................................................................................. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 78 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS NAME _______________________________ NAME _______________________________ NAME ______________________________ FIRST FARMER SECOND FARMER THIRD FARMER GREENGRAMS - REPEAT QUESTIONS G13-G16 FOR EACH CROP SELECTED BY THE ACTIVITY A B C D E F G H I J K L Y YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DID NOT HARVEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DID NOT HARVEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DID NOT HARVEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A B C D E F G H I J K L Y YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DID NOT HARVEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DID NOT HARVEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DID NOT HARVEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A B C D E Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E Y (SKIP TO G13C) (SKIP TO G13C) (SKIP TO G13C) (SKIP TO G13D) (SKIP TO G13D) (SKIP TO G13D) A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y DID NOT USE ANY OF THESE PRACTICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS......................................................................................................................................... APPLICATION OF INOCULANT................................................................................................................................................................................................. USE OF RAINWATER HARVESTING TECHNOLOGIES (E.G., WATER PANS, ROCK/ROOF CATCHMENT)......................................................................... PRODUCTION PLANNING AND CROP ROTATION IN IRRIGATION SCHEMES...................................................................................................................... USE OF DROUGHT EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS OR INFORMATION................................................................................................................................... IMPROVED/CERTIFIED SEED…..................................................................................................... ......................................................................................... SEEDLING PRODUCTION AND TRANSPLANTATION.............................................................................................................................................................. CROP ROTATION (ROTATING GRAINS WITH NITROGEN FIXING LEGUMES) ..................................................................................................................... KITCHEN GARDENS USING SUNKEN PITS............................................................................................................................................................................. USE OF ORGANIC MANURE..................................................................................................................................................................................................... SOIL TESTING............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ USE OF DRIP OR SPRINKLER IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGIES............................................................................................................................................... USE OF FLOOD-BASED FARMING TECHNOLOGIES (SPATE IRRIGATION) ......................................................................................................................... USE OF ALUMINIUM CANS, CRATES, OTHER FOOD GRADE CONTAINERS DURING TRANSPORTATION....................................................................... USE OF WELL-EQUIPPED FOOD STORAGE STRUCTURES (RODENT PROOF; PROPER AIR CIRCULATION)................................................................. TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY CONTROL (SHED NETS, AIR CONDITION, FANS)............................................................................................................. SOLAR DRYING FOR GRAINS AND PULSES .......................................................................................................................................................................... DID NOT USE ANY OF THESE PRACTICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS......................................................................................................................................... APPLICATION OF INOCULANT................................................................................................................................................................................................. USE OF RAINWATER HARVESTING TECHNOLOGIES (E.G. WATER PANS, ROCK/ROOF CATCHMENT).......................................................................... PRODUCTION PLANNING AND CROP ROTATION IN IRRIGATION SCHEMES...................................................................................................................... USE OF DROUGHT EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS OR INFORMATION................................................................................................................................... DID NOT USE ANY OF THESE PRACTICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS......................................................................................................................................... A B C D E Y AFLATOXIN PREVENTION AND CONTROL.............................................................................................................................................................................. USE OF DRIP OR SPRINKLER IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGIES............................................................................................................................................... USE OF FLOOD-BASED FARMING TECHNOLOGIES (SPATE IRRIGATION) ......................................................................................................................... IMPROVED/CERTIFIED SEED…..................................................................................................... ......................................................................................... SEEDLING PRODUCTION AND TRANSPLANTATION.............................................................................................................................................................. CROP ROTATION (ROTATING GRAINS WITH NITROGEN FIXING LEGUMES) ..................................................................................................................... KITCHEN GARDENS USING SUNKEN PITS............................................................................................................................................................................. USE OF ORGANIC MANURE..................................................................................................................................................................................................... (SKIP TO G13D) (SKIP TO G13D) (SKIP TO G13D) SOIL TESTING............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A B C D E Y G13b In the past 12 months, did you plant any greengrams in the plots over which you make decisions? G14b Did you use any of these practices for cultivation of the greengrams in the [PAST 12 MONTHS] ? CIRCLE ALL PRACTICES THAT ARE MENTIONED, IF NONE USED, CIRCLE Y. G15b Did you store the greengrams that you harvested? G16b Did you use any of these methods to store the green grams in the [PAST 12 MONTHS] ? CIRCLE ALL PRACTICES THAT ARE MENTIONED, IF NONE USED, CIRCLE Y. ORANGE-FLESHED SWEET POTATOES - REPEAT QUESTIONS G13-G16 FOR EACH CROP SELECTED BY THE ACTIVITY G13c In the past 12 months, did you plant any orange-fleshed sweet potatoes in the plots over which you make decisions? G14c Did you use any of these practices for cultivation of the orange-fleshed sweet potatoes in the [PAST 12 MONTHS] ? CIRCLE ALL PRACTICES THAT ARE MENTIONED, IF NONE USED, CIRCLE Y. G15c Did you store the orange-fleshed sweet potatoes that you harvested? G16c Did you use any of these methods to store the orange-fleshed sweet potatoes in the [PAST 12 MONTHS] ? CIRCLE ALL PRACTICES THAT ARE MENTIONED, IF NONE USED, CIRCLE Y. YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A B C D E Y (SKIP TO G13C) (SKIP TO G13C) (SKIP TO G13C) DID NOT USE ANY OF THESE PRACTICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS......................................................................................................................................... A B C D E Y A B C D E Y A B C D E Y AFLATOXIN PREVENTION AND CONTROL.............................................................................................................................................................................. USE OF ALUMINIUM CANS, CRATES, OTHER FOOD GRADE CONTAINERS DURING TRANSPORTATION....................................................................... USE OF WELL-EQUIPPED FOOD STORAGE STRUCTURES (RODENT PROOF; PROPER AIR CIRCULATION)................................................................. TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY CONTROL (SHED NETS, AIR CONDITION, FANS)............................................................................................................. SOLAR DRYING FOR GRAINS AND PULSES .......................................................................................................................................................................... Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 79 SORGHUM - REPEAT QUESTIONS G13-G14 FOR EACH CROP SELECTED BY THE ACTIVITY NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS NAME _______________________________ NAME _______________________________ NAME ______________________________ FIRST FARMER SECOND FARMER THIRD FARMER G13d In the past 12 months, did you plant any sorghum in the plots over which you make decisions? G14d Did you use any of these practices for cultivation of the sorghum In the [PAST 12 MONTHS] ? CIRCLE ALL PRACTICES THAT ARE MENTIONED, IF NONE USED, CIRCLE Y. G15d Did you store the sorghum that you harvested? G16d Did you use any of these methods to store the sorghum in the [PAST 12 MONTHS] ? CIRCLE ALL PRACTICES THAT ARE MENTIONED, IF NONE USED, CIRCLE Y. G17 CHECK ANSWER TO QUESTION G05. IS THE ANSWER TO QUESTION G05 "YES"? CATTLE - REPEAT QUESTIONS G18-G19 FOR EACH LIVESTOCK SELECTED BY THE ACTIVITY G18a In the past 12 months, did you raise any cattle (beef or milk)? G19a Did you use any of the following practices when you cared for the cattle during the [PAST 12 MONTHS]? CIRCLE ALL PRACTICES THAT ARE MENTIONED, IF NONE USED, CIRCLE Y. GOATS - REPEAT QUESTIONS G18-G19 FOR EACH LIVESTOCK SELECTED BY THE ACTIVITY G18b In the past 12 months, did you raise any goats? G19b Did you use any of the following practices when you cared for the goats during the [PAST 12 MONTHS]? CIRCLE ALL PRACTICES THAT ARE MENTIONED, IF NONE USED, CIRCLE Y. YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF NO, SKIP TO G20. YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A B C D E F G H I J K L Y YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y IMPROVED FODDER PRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................................................ USE OF IMPROVED LIVESTOCK BREEDS/SPECIES.............................................................................................................................................................. USE OF LIVESTOCK HEALTH SERVICES AND PRODUCTS .................................................................................................................................................. A B C D E Y USE OF IMPROVED SHELTERS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. USE OF IMPROVED CALVING TECHNIQUES ......................................................................................................................................................................... USE OF IMPROVED MILKING TECHNIQUES .......................................................................................................................................................................... USE OF NUTRITIOUS PASTURE VARIETIES........................................................................................................................................................................... UTILIZATION OF SET GRAZING AREAS .................................................................................................................................................................................. (SKIP TO G18C) (SKIP TO G18C) (SKIP TO G18C) DID NOT USE ANY OF THESE PRACTICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS......................................................................................................................................... (SKIP TO G18B) (SKIP TO G18B) (SKIP TO G18B) A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y USE OF SOLARIZED BOREHOLES FOR LIVESTOCK............................................................................................................................................................. USE OF WATER PANS FOR LIVESTOCK................................................................................................................................................................................. USE OF SAND DAMS FOR LIVESTOCK................................................................................................................................................................................... USE OF ROCK CATCHMENTS FOR LIVESTOCK..................................................................................................................................................................... (SKIP TO G17) (SKIP TO G17) (SKIP TO G17) IMPROVED/CERTIFIED SEED…..................................................................................................... ......................................................................................... A SEEDLING PRODUCTION AND TRANSPLANTATION.............................................................................................................................................................. B CROP ROTATION (ROTATING GRAINS WITH NITROGEN FIXING LEGUMES) ..................................................................................................................... C KITCHEN GARDENS USING SUNKEN PITS............................................................................................................................................................................. D USE OF ORGANIC MANURE..................................................................................................................................................................................................... E SOIL TESTING............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ F APPLICATION OF INOCULANT................................................................................................................................................................................................. G USE OF DRIP OR SPRINKLER IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGIES............................................................................................................................................... H USE OF RAINWATER HARVESTING TECHNOLOGIES (E.G. WATER PANS, ROCK/ROOF CATCHMENT).......................................................................... I USE OF FLOOD-BASED FARMING TECHNOLOGIES (SPATE IRRIGATION) ......................................................................................................................... J PRODUCTION PLANNING AND CROP ROTATION IN IRRIGATION SCHEMES...................................................................................................................... K USE OF DROUGHT EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS OR INFORMATION................................................................................................................................... L DID NOT USE ANY OF THESE PRACTICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS......................................................................................................................................... Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (SKIP TO G17) (SKIP TO G17) (SKIP TO G17) DID NOT HARVEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DID NOT HARVEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DID NOT HARVEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A B C D E Y A B C D E Y IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF NO, SKIP TO G20. IF NO, SKIP TO G20. AFLATOXIN PREVENTION AND CONTROL.............................................................................................................................................................................. A USE OF ALUMINIUM CANS, CRATES, OTHER FOOD GRADE CONTAINERS DURING TRANSPORTATION....................................................................... B USE OF WELL-EQUIPPED FOOD STORAGE STRUCTURES (RODENT PROOF; PROPER AIR CIRCULATION)................................................................. C TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY CONTROL (SHED NETS, AIR CONDITION, FANS)............................................................................................................. D SOLAR DRYING FOR GRAINS AND PULSES .......................................................................................................................................................................... E DID NOT USE ANY OF THESE PRACTICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS......................................................................................................................................... Y USE OF IMPROVED LIVESTOCK BREEDS/SPECIES.............................................................................................................................................................. A USE OF LIVESTOCK HEALTH SERVICES AND PRODUCTS .................................................................................................................................................. B USE OF IMPROVED SHELTERS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. C USE OF IMPROVED CALVING TECHNIQUES ......................................................................................................................................................................... D USE OF IMPROVED MILKING TECHNIQUES .......................................................................................................................................................................... E USE OF NUTRITIOUS PASTURE VARIETIES........................................................................................................................................................................... F UTILIZATION OF SET GRAZING AREAS .................................................................................................................................................................................. G IMPROVED FODDER PRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................................................ H USE OF SOLARIZED BOREHOLES FOR LIVESTOCK............................................................................................................................................................. I USE OF WATER PANS FOR LIVESTOCK................................................................................................................................................................................. J USE OF SAND DAMS FOR LIVESTOCK................................................................................................................................................................................... K USE OF ROCK CATCHMENTS FOR LIVESTOCK..................................................................................................................................................................... L DID NOT USE ANY OF THESE PRACTICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS......................................................................................................................................... Y IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 80 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS NAME _______________________________ NAME _______________________________ NAME ______________________________ FIRST FARMER SECOND FARMER THIRD FARMER G18c In the past 12 months, did you raise any camels? G19c Did you use any of the following practices when you cared for the camels during the [PAST 12 MONTHS]? CIRCLE ALL PRACTICES THAT ARE MENTIONED, IF NONE USED, CIRCLE Y. CHECK ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS G04 G20 AND G05. IS THE ANSWER TO QUESTION G04 OR G05 "YES"? YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A B C D E F G H I J K L Y IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF NO, SKIP TO G22. IF NO, SKIP TO G22. IF NO, SKIP TO G22. NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT G21 Did you use any of the following natural resources management practices or techniques during the [PAST 12 MONTHS]? CIRCLE ALL PRACTICES THAT ARE MENTIONED, IF NONE USED, CIRCLE Y. G22 THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR THIS FARMER. G23 INSERT TIME MODULE ENDED A B C D E F G H I J Y HOUR MINUTE GO TO NEXT MODULE A B C D E F G H I J Y A B C D E F G H I J Y GO TO G02 FOR ANOTHER FARMER. IF THERE ARE NO MORE FARMERS, GO TO G23. REHABILITATION OF DEGRADED GRAZING LANDS (SOIL/WATER CONSERVATION) ....................................................................................................... UTILIZATION OF ORGANIC MATERIALS SUCH AS GRAIN STRAW, FRESH OR OLD HAY OR OTHER CROP RESIDUES................................................. DID NOT USE ANY OF THESE PRACTICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS......................................................................................................................................... A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y A B C D E F G H I J K L Y GO TO G02 FOR ANOTHER FARMER. IF THERE ARE NO MORE FARMERS, GO TO G23. GO TO G02 FOR ANOTHER FARMER. IF THERE ARE NO MORE FARMERS, GO TO G23. USE OF IMPROVED CALVING TECHNIQUES ......................................................................................................................................................................... USE OF IMPROVED MILKING TECHNIQUES .......................................................................................................................................................................... USE OF NUTRITIOUS PASTURE VARIETIES........................................................................................................................................................................... UTILIZATION OF SET GRAZING AREAS .................................................................................................................................................................................. IMPROVED FODDER PRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................................................ USE OF SOLARIZED BOREHOLES FOR LIVESTOCK............................................................................................................................................................. USE OF WATER PANS FOR LIVESTOCK................................................................................................................................................................................. USE OF SAND DAMS FOR LIVESTOCK................................................................................................................................................................................... USE OF ROCK CATCHMENTS FOR LIVESTOCK..................................................................................................................................................................... USE OF IMPROVED SHELTERS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. USE OF IMPROVED LIVESTOCK BREEDS/SPECIES.............................................................................................................................................................. USE OF LIVESTOCK HEALTH SERVICES AND PRODUCTS .................................................................................................................................................. (SKIP TO G20) (SKIP TO G20) (SKIP TO G20) CAMELS - REPEAT QUESTIONS G18-G19 FOR EACH LIVESTOCK SELECTED BY THE ACTIVITY USE OF MINIMUM TILLAGE PRACTICES (LEAVE CROP RESIDUE ON SOIL SURFACE)..................................................................................................... PLANTING NITROGEN-FIXING TREES (ACACIA)..................................................................................................................................................................... CONSTRUCTION OF SOIL CONSERVATION STRUCTURES (GABIONS)............................................................................................................................... DID NOT USE ANY OF THESE PRACTICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS......................................................................................................................................... A B C D E F G H I J Y RESEEDING DEGRADED LANDS WITH DROUGHT RESISTANT GRASS SPECIES.............................................................................................................. FENCING OFF PASTURE PLOTS TO CONSERVE PASTURE................................................................................................................................................. USE OF NATURAL BARRIERS/COVER CROPS (GRASS STRIPS/CROP COVERS)............................................................................................................... PLANTING AGROFORESTRY TREES AND FRUITS (E.G., GREVILLEA, PAWPAW).............................................................................................................. ZAÏ PITS (POT-HOLING)............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 81 NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS 7.5000A INSERT TIME MODULE STARTED 7.5000B CLUSTER AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER 7.5000C LINE NUMBER OF THE RESPONDENT TO THIS MODULE 7.5000D OBTAIN CONSENT. DOES [NAME] AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY? 7.5001a How many adult male cows - animals that are over two years old, do you own? 7.5001b What is the overall condition of your adult male cows? SHOW BODY CONDITION SCORE CHARTS. 7.5001c In the past year, how many adult male cows did you sell? 7.5001d In the past year, how many adult male cows did your household consume? 7.5001e In the past year, how many adult male cows did you gift or loan out to others? 7.5002a How many adult female cows - animals that are over two years old, do you own? 7.5002b What is the overall condition of your adult female cows? SHOW BODY CONDITION SCORE CHARTS. 7.5002c In the past year, how many adult female cows did you sell? HOUR MINUTE CLUSTER HH LINE NUMBER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NUMBER OF ADULT MALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5002a 1 2 3 4 5 NUMBER OF ADULT MALES SOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF ADULT MALES CONSUMED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF ADULT MALES GIFTED/LOANED . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF ADULT FEMALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5003a 1 2 3 4 5 NUMBER OF ADULT FEMALES SOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 GOOD - SMOOTH APPEARANCE............................................ EMACIATED - BONES VISIBLE................................................ THIN - FORE RIBS VISIBLE..................................................... BORDERLINE - FORE RIBS NOT VISIBLE, 12th & 13th RIBS VISIBLE......................................................... MODERATE - NEITHER FAT NOR THIN.................................. 7.5019 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - CATTLE (DAIRY AND BEEF COWS) 7.50.00a CHECK QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM G18A TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE ANY HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO RESPOND TO MODULE 7.50-CATTLE (DAIRY AND BEEF COWS). ADMINISTER THIS QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUALLY TO ALL ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. • IF NO ONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD RAISED CATTLE FOR DAIRY OR BEEF IN THE PAST YEAR, PROCEED TO THE NEXT MODULE OR THANK THE RESPONDENT FOR THEIR TIME AND END THE INTERVIEW. • FOR EACH MEMBER OF THE HOUSEHOLD WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO RESPOND TO MODULE 7.50 - CATTLE (DAIRY OR BEEF), CHECK THE INFORMED CONSENT REGISTER AND ENSURE THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED INFORMED CONSENT; IF NOT, ADMINISTER THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCEDURE TO THE RESPONDENT. 7.50.00b “Next I would like to ask you about the cattle (dairy and beef cows) you raised during the past year.” CODING CATEGORIES SKIP EMACIATED - BONES VISIBLE................................................ THIN - FORE RIBS VISIBLE..................................................... BORDERLINE - FORE RIBS NOT VISIBLE, 12th & 13th RIBS VISIBLE......................................................... MODERATE - NEITHER FAT NOR THIN.................................. GOOD - SMOOTH APPEARANCE............................................ IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 82 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES SKIP 7.5002d In the past year, how many adult female cows did your household consume? 7.5002e In the past year, how many adult female cows did you gift or loan out to others? 7.5002f How many of your female cows gave birth in the past year? 7.5003a How many male young stock - animals one to two years old - do you own? 7.5003b What is the overall condition of your young male stock? SHOW BODY CONDITION SCORE CHARTS. 7.5003c In the past year, how many young male stock did you sell? 7.5003d In the past year, how many young male stock did your household consume? 7.5003e In the past year, how many young male stock did you gift or loan out to others? 7.5004a How many female young stock - animals one to two years old - do you own? 7.5004b What is the overall condition of your young female stock? SHOW BODY CONDITION SCORE CHARTS. 7.5004c In the past year, how many young female stock did you sell? 7.5004d In the past year, how many young female stock did your household consume? 7.5004e In the past year, how many young female stock did you gift or loan out to others? NUMBER OF ADULT FEMALES CONSUMED NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF ADULT FEMALES GIFTED/LOANED NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 TOTAL NUMBER OF FEMALES THAT GAVE BIRTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF MALE YOUNG STOCK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5004a 1 2 3 4 5 NUMBER OF YOUNG MALE STOCK SOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG MALE STOCK CONSUMED . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG MALE STOCK GIFTED/LOANED . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF FEMALE YOUNG STOCK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5005a 1 2 3 4 5 NUMBER OF YOUNG FEMALE STOCK SOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG FEMALE STOCK CONSUMED . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG FEMALE STOCK GIFTED/LOANED NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5005a How many male calves - animals under one year old - do you own? NUMBER OF MALE CALVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5006a EMACIATED - BONES VISIBLE................................................ THIN - FORE RIBS VISIBLE..................................................... BORDERLINE - FORE RIBS NOT VISIBLE, 12th & 13th RIBS VISIBLE......................................................... MODERATE - NEITHER FAT NOR THIN.................................. GOOD - SMOOTH APPEARANCE............................................ EMACIATED - BONES VISIBLE................................................ THIN - FORE RIBS VISIBLE..................................................... BORDERLINE - FORE RIBS NOT VISIBLE, 12th & 13th RIBS VISIBLE......................................................... MODERATE - NEITHER FAT NOR THIN.................................. GOOD - SMOOTH APPEARANCE............................................ Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 83 NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES SKIP 7.5005b What is the overall condition of your male calves? SHOW BODY CONDITION SCORE CHARTS. 7.5005c In the past year, how many male calves did you sell? 7.5005d In the past year, how many male calves did your household consume? 7.5005e In the past year, how many male calves did you gift or loan out to others? 7.5006a How many female calves - animals under one year old - do you own? 7.5006b What is the overall condition of your female calves? SHOW BODY CONDITION SCORE CHARTS. 7.5006c In the past year, how many female calves did you sell? 7.5006d In the past year, how many female calves did your household consume? 7.5006e In the past year, how many female calves did you gift or loan out to others? 7.5007 In the past year, how many of your cattle died? Do you own dairy cows for m ki 7. il ng? 5008 7.5009 How many cows did you collect milk from yesterday? 7.5010 Yesterday morning, how much milk in total did your dairy cows produce? 1 2 3 4 5 NUMBER OF MALE CALVES SOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF MALE CALVES CONSUMED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF MALE CALVES GIFTED/LOANED . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF FEMALE CALVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5007 1 2 3 4 5 NUMBER OF FEMALE CALVES SOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF FEMALE CALVES CONSUMED . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF FEMALE CALVES GIFTED/LOANED . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF CATTLE DIED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NUMBER OF COWS MILKED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5013 QUANTITY: UNIT: LITRE . . . . . . . . . 1 NONE . . OTHER (SPECIFY) 6 0000 7.5018 EMACIATED - BONES VISIBLE................................................ THIN - FORE RIBS VISIBLE..................................................... BORDERLINE - FORE RIBS NOT VISIBLE, 12th & 13th RIBS VISIBLE......................................................... MODERATE - NEITHER FAT NOR THIN.................................. GOOD - SMOOTH APPEARANCE............................................ EMACIATED - BONES VISIBLE................................................ THIN - FORE RIBS VISIBLE..................................................... BORDERLINE - FORE RIBS NOT VISIBLE, 12th & 13th RIBS VISIBLE......................................................... MODERATE - NEITHER FAT NOR THIN.................................. GOOD - SMOOTH APPEARANCE............................................ IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 84 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES SKIP 7.5011 Yesterday evening, how much milk in total did your dairy cows produce? 7.5012 ADD QUANTITIES IN ITEMS 7.5010 AND 7.5011. Your dairy cows produced [QUANTITY] [UNITS] of milk yesterday. How many [UNITS] of that milk did you sell? 7.5013 Where do you usually sell your milk? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY 7.5014 Do you usually sell only morning milk, only evening milk, or both morning and evening milk? 7.5015 CHECK ITEM 7.5013: DOES FARMER SELL MILK TO A MILK MARKETING COOP (RESPONSE D)? 7.5016 What services does your milk marketing cooperative provide you? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY 7.5017 How do you receive payment for your milk from your cooperative? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY 7.5018 What information source do you rely on the most to help you raise your cattle well? 7.5019 ENTER TIME MODULE FINISHED QUANTITY: UNIT: LITRE . . . . . . . . . 1 NONE . . OTHER (SPECIFY) 6 QUANTITY: UNIT: LITRE . . . . . . . . . 1 NONE . . OTHER (SPECIFY) 6 A B C D E F G 7.5018 OTHER (SPECIFY) ______________________ X ONLY MORNING MILK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ONLY EVENING MILK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 BOTH MORNING AND EVENING MILK . . . . . . . 3 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A B C D E F OTHER (SPECIFY) ______________________ X CASH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A STORE CREDIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B MPESA/MOBILE MONEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C DIRECT DEPOSIT TO BANK ACCOUNT . . . . D OTHER (SPECIFY) ______________________ X FRIEND/NEIGHBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 COMMUNITY ANIMAL HEALTH WORKER . . 02 LOCAL AGROVET SUPPLIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 PRIVATE VETERINARY PHARMACY . . . . . . . 04 AG EXTENSION WORKER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 SCHOOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06 RADIO PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07 TELEVISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08 MOBILE PHONE MESSAGING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 09 INTERNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 OTHER (SPECIFY) 96 HOUR MINUTE NEXT MODULE 7.5018 RECORDS AMOUNT OF MILK SOLD....................................... RECORDS FAT CONTENT OF MILK SOLD............................. RECORDS ACIDITY OF MILK SOLD........................................ PROVIDES EXTENSION SERVICES........................................ PROVIDES ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICES................................ PROVIDES LOANS................................................................... SELL TO FRIENDS/NEIGHBORS............................................. SELL IT AT MARKET MYSELF/OTHER HH MEMBER.............. SELL TO A SCHOOL................................................................ SELL TO A MILK MARKETING COOPERATIVE....................... SELL TO AGGREGATOR/OFF-TAKER.................................... SELL TO HOTEL (RESTAURANT)............................................ DOES NOT SELL MILK............................................................. 0000 0000 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 85 NO. SKIP 7.5100A ENTER TIME MODULE STARTED 7.5100B CLUSTER AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER 7.5100C LINE NUMBER OF FARMER 7.5100D OBTAIN CONSENT. DOES [NAME] AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY? 7.5101a A herd of goats can include both adult goats and young goats. Adult goats are one year old or older. How many adult male goats do you own? 7.5101b What is the overall condition of your adult male goats? SHOW BODY CONDITION SCORE CHARTS. 7.5101c In the past year, how many adult male goats did you sell? 7.5101d In the past year, how many adult male goats did your household consume? 7.5101e In the past year, how many adult male goats did you gift or loan out to others? 7.5102a How many adult female goats do you own? 7.5102b What is the overall condition of your adult female goats? SHOW BODY CONDITION SCORE CHARTS. 7.5102c How many adult female goats gave birth in the last year? 7.5102d In the past year, how many adult female goats did you sell? HOUR MINUTE CLUSTER HH LINE NUMBER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7.5107 NUMBER OF ADULT MALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5102a 1 2 3 4 5 NUMBER OF ADULT MALES SOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF ADULT MALES CONSUME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF ADULT MALES GIFTED/LOANED . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF ADULT FEMALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5103a 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL NUMBER OF FEMALES THAT GAVE BIRTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF ADULT FEMALES SOLD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 MODULE 7.51 - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - GOATS CHECK MODULE G QUESTION G18B. IF FARMER ANSWERED YES THEN CONTINUE WITH 7.5100 7.5100 “Next I would like to ask you about the goats you raised during the past year.” QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES EMACIATED - BONES VISIBLE............................................ THIN - FORE RIBS VISIBLE.................................................. 12th & 13th RIBS VISIBLE..................................................... MODERATE - NEITHER FAT NOR THIN.............................. GOOD - SMOOTH APPEARANCE........................................ BORDERLINE - FORE RIBS NOT VISIBLE, EMACIATED - BONES VISIBLE............................................ THIN - FORE RIBS VISIBLE.................................................. 12th & 13th RIBS VISIBLE..................................................... MODERATE - NEITHER FAT NOR THIN.............................. GOOD - SMOOTH APPEARANCE........................................ BORDERLINE - FORE RIBS NOT VISIBLE, IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 86 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires MODULE 7.51 - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - GOATS 7.5102e In the past year, how many female goats did your household consume? 7.5102f In the past year, how many adult female goats did you gift or loan out to others? 7.5103a Young goats are less than one year old. How many young male goats do you own? 7.5103b What is the overall condition of your young male goats? SHOW BODY CONDITION SCORE CHARTS. 7.5103c In the past year, how many young male goats did you sell? 7.5103d In the past year, how many young male goats did your household consume? 7.5103e In the past year, how many young male goats did you gift or loan out to others? 7.5104a And how many young female goats do you own? 7.5104b What is the overall condition of your young female goats? SHOW BODY CONDITION SCORE CHARTS. 7.5104c In the past year, how many young female goats did you sell? 7.5104d In the past year, how many young female goats did your household consume? 7.5104e In the past year, how many young female goats did you gift or loan out to others? 7.5105 In the past year, how many of your goats died? NUMBER OF FEMALES CONSUMED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF ADULT FEMALES GIFTED/LOANED . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG MALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5104a 1 2 3 4 5 NUMBER OF YOUNG MALES SOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG MALES CONSUMED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG MALES GIFTED/LOANED. . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG FEMALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5105 1 2 3 4 5 NUMBER OF YOUNG FEMALES SOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG FEMALES CONSUME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG FEMALES GIFTED/LOANED . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF GOATS DIED . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 EMACIATED - BONES VISIBLE............................................ THIN - FORE RIBS VISIBLE.................................................. 12th & 13th RIBS VISIBLE..................................................... MODERATE - NEITHER FAT NOR THIN.............................. GOOD - SMOOTH APPEARANCE........................................ MODERATE - NEITHER FAT NOR THIN.............................. GOOD - SMOOTH APPEARANCE........................................ BORDERLINE - FORE RIBS NOT VISIBLE, EMACIATED - BONES VISIBLE............................................ THIN - FORE RIBS VISIBLE.................................................. 12th & 13th RIBS VISIBLE..................................................... BORDERLINE - FORE RIBS NOT VISIBLE, Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 87 FRIEND/NEIGHBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 COMMUNITY ANIMAL HEALTH WORKER . . 2 LOCAL AGROVET SUPPLIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 PRIVATE VETERINARY PHARMACY . . . . . . . . 4 AG EXTENSION WORKER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 SCHOOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 RADIO PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 TELEVISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 MOBILE PHONE MESSAGING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 INTERNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 OTHER (SPECIFY) 96 HOUR MINUTE 7.5106 What information source do you rely on the most to help you increase the production from your goats? 7.5107 ENTER TIME MODULE FINISHED MODULE 7.51 - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - GOATS GO TO NEXT MODULE IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 88 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires NO. 7.5300A INSERT TIME MODULE STARTED 7.5300B CLUSTER AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER 7.5300C LINE NUMBER OF THE RESPONDENT TO THIS MODULE 7.5300D OBTAIN CONSENT. DOES [NAME] AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY? 7.5301a Camels can include both mature and young stock. Mature camels are camels who have reached their full potential weight. How many mature male stock do you own? 7.5301b What is the overall condition of your mature male camels? SHOW BODY CONDITION SCORE CHARTS. 7.5301c In the past year, how many mature male camels did you sell? 7.5301d In the past year, how many mature male camels did your household consume? 7.5301e In the past year, how many mature male camels did you gift or loan out to others? 7.5302a How many mature female stock do you own? 7.5302b What is the overall condition of your mature female camels? SHOW BODY CONDITION SCORE CHARTS. HOUR MINUTE CLUSTER HH LINE NUMBER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7.5316 NUMBER OF MATURE MALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5302a 1 2 3 4 5 NUMBER OF MATURE MALES SOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF MATURE MALES CONSUMED . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF MATURE MALES GIFTED/LOANED NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF MATURE FEMALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5303a 1 2 3 4 5 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - CAMELS 7.53.00a CHECK QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM G18C TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE ANY HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO RESPOND TO MODULE 7.53 - CAMELS. ADMINISTER THIS QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUALLY TO ALL ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. • IF NO ONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD RAISED CAMELS IN THE PAST YEAR, PROCEED TO THE NEXT MODULE OR THANK THE RESPONDENT FOR THEIR TIME AND END THE INTERVIEW. • FOR EACH MEMBER OF THE HOUSEHOLD WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO RESPOND TO MODULE 7.53 - CAMELS, CHECK THE INFORMED CONSENT REGISTER AND ENSURE THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED INFORMED CONSENT; IF NOT, ADMINISTER THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCEDURE TO THE RESPONDENT. 7.53.00b “Next I would like to ask you about the camels you raised during the past year.” QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES EMACIATED - BONES VISIBLE........................................... THIN - FORE RIBS VISIBLE................................................. 12th & 13th RIBS VISIBLE.................................................... MODERATE - NEITHER FAT NOR THIN............................. GOOD - SMOOTH APPEARANCE....................................... EMACIATED - BONES VISIBLE........................................... THIN - FORE RIBS VISIBLE................................................. 12th & 13th RIBS VISIBLE.................................................... MODERATE - NEITHER FAT NOR THIN............................. GOOD - SMOOTH APPEARANCE....................................... BORDERLINE - FORE RIBS NOT VISIBLE, BORDERLINE - FORE RIBS NOT VISIBLE, Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 89 NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES 7.5302c How many of your female camels gave birth in the past year? 7.5302d In the past year, how many mature female camels did you sell? 7.5303e In the past year, how many mature female camels did your household consume? 7.5302f In the past year, how many mature female camels did you gift or loan out to others? 7.5303a How many young male stock do you own? 7.5303b What is the overall condition of your young male camels? SHOW BODY CONDITION SCORE CHARTS. 7.5303c In the past year, how many young male camels did you sell? 7.5303d In the past year, how many young male camels did your household consume? 7.5303e In the past year, how many young male camels did you gift or loan out to others? 7.5304a How many young female stock do you own? 7.5304b What is the overall condition of your young female camels? SHOW BODY CONDITION SCORE CHARTS. 7.5304c In the past year, how many young female camels did you sell? 7.5304d In the past year, how many young female camels did your household consume? 7.5304e In the past year, how many young female camels did you gift or loan out to others? TOTAL NUMBER OF FEMALES THAT GAVE BIRTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF MATURE FEMALES SOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF MATURE FEMALES CONSUMED . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF MATURE FEMALES GIFTED/LOANED NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG MALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5304a 1 2 3 4 5 NUMBER OF YOUNG MALES SOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG MALES CONSUMED . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG MALES GIFTED/LOANED NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG FEMALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5305 1 2 3 4 5 NUMBER OF YOUNG FEMALES SOLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG FEMALES CONSUMED . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 NUMBER OF YOUNG FEMALES GIFTED/LOANED NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 BORDERLINE - FORE RIBS NOT VISIBLE, BORDERLINE - FORE RIBS NOT VISIBLE, EMACIATED - BONES VISIBLE........................................... THIN - FORE RIBS VISIBLE................................................. 12th &13th RIBS VISIBLE..................................................... MODERATE - NEITHER FAT NOR THIN............................. GOOD - SMOOTH APPEARANCE....................................... EMACIATED - BONES VISIBLE........................................... THIN - FORE RIBS VISIBLE................................................. 12th & 13th RIBS VISIBLE.................................................... MODERATE - NEITHER FAT NOR THIN............................. GOOD - SMOOTH APPEARANCE....................................... IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 90 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS 7.5305 In the past year, how many of your camels died? Do you collect milk from your camels? 7.5306 7.5307 How many camels did you collect milk from yesterday? 7.5308 Yesterday morning, how much milk in total did your camels produce? 7.5309 Yesterday evening, how much milk in total did your camels produce? 7.5310 ADD QUANTITIES IN ITEMS 7.5308 AND 7.5309. Your camels produced [QUANTITY] [UNITS] of milk yesterday. How many [UNITS] of that milk did you sell? 7.5311 Where do you usually sell your milk? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY 7.5312 CHECK ITEM 7.5311: DOES FARMER SELL MILK TO A MILK MARKETING COOP (RESPONSE D)? 7.5313 What services does your milk marketing cooperative provide you? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY CODING CATEGORIES NUMBER OF CAMELS DIED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7.5315 NUMBER OF CAMELS MILKED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 7.5311 QUANTITY: UNIT: 1 NONE . . 6 QUANTITY: UNIT: 1 NONE . . 6 QUANTITY: UNIT: 1 NONE . . 6 A B C D E F G 7.5315 OTHER (SPECIFY) ______________________ X YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7.5315 A B C D E F OTHER (SPECIFY) ______________________ X LITRE..................................... RECORDS AMOUNT OF MILK SOLD.................................. RECORDS FAT CONTENT OF MILK SOLD........................ RECORDS ACIDITY OF MILK SOLD.................................... PROVIDES EXTENSION SERVICES................................... 0000 0000 0000 OTHER (SPECIFY)................ LITRE..................................... OTHER (SPECIFY)................ SELL TO AGGREGATOR/OFF-TAKER................................ DOES NOT SELL MILK........................................................ OTHER (SPECIFY)................ LITRE..................................... PROVIDES ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICES............................ PROVIDES LOANS............................................................... SELL TO FRIENDS/NEIGHBORS......................................... SELL IT AT MARKET MYSELF/OTHER HH MEMBER........ SELL TO A SCHOOL............................................................ SELL TO A MILK MARKETING COOPERATIVE.................. SELL TO HOTEL (RESTAURANT)....................................... Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 91 NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS 7.5314 How do you receive payment for your milk from your cooperative? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY. 7.5315 What information source do you rely on the most to help you raise your livestock well? 7.5316 ENTER TIME MODULE FINISHED CODING CATEGORIES A B C D X FRIEND/NEIGHBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 COMMUNITY ANIMAL HEALTH WORKER 2 LOCAL AGROVET SUPPLIER . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 PRIVATE VETERINARY PHARMACY . . . . 4 AG EXTENSION WORKER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 SCHOOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 RADIO PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 TELEVISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 MOBILE PHONE MESSAGING . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 INTERNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 OTHER (SPECIFY) 96 HOUR MINUTE GO TO NEXT MODULE OTHER (SPECIFY) ______________________.................. CASH.................................................................................... STORE CREDIT.................................................................... MPESA/MOBILE MONEY..................................................... DIRECT DEPOSIT TO BANK ACCOUNT............................. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 92 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 8.100A ENTER TIME MODULE STARTED 8.100B CLUSTER AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER 8.100C LINE NUMBER OF RESPONDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HOUR MINUTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLUSTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LINE NUMBER FOOD CONSUMPTION OVER PAST 7 DAYS 8.100D “Now I would like to ask you about the kinds of foods that you and other members of your household have eaten over the past week. I’d also like to ask you about items that you or members of your household may have bought in the past week. Please include foods in meals that are shared with other members of the household, as well as foods that individual members of the household may have consumed independently of other family members. First we will ask about foods that were eaten at your home, or at the home of friends or other family. Later we will ask about foods that were purchased already prepared from a restaurant or a vendor.” 8.100E OBTAIN CONSENT. DOES [NAME] AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY? YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 GO TO Q.8.708 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 CEREALS, GRAINS AND CEREAL PRODUCTS (8001-8020) 8001 Maize straight run (Normal flour) 8002 Sifted maize (fine flour) 8003 Maize rice (bran flour) 8004 Maize grain 8005 Green maize 8006 Rice 8007 Finger millet 8008 Sorghum 8009 Pearl millet 8010 Wheat flour 8011 Bread 8012 Buns, scones 8013 Biscuits 8014 Spaghetti, macaroni, pasta 8015 Breakfast cereal 8016 Infant feeding cereals 8.106C 8.107 8.107C FIRST SELECT 1 CHECK 8.107A. (YES), 2 (NO), OR 8 How much did you spend CHECK 8.106A Over the past one week (7 days), did you or others in (DK) FOR ALL THE on what was eaten in the IF 8.106A IS > 0, IF 8.107A IS your household eat any [FOOD ITEM]? FOOD ITEMS FROM "Earlier, you told me you or past week (7 days)? ASK: > 0, ASK: 7001 TO 7186. GO other household members CHECK 8.103 AND 8.104. “Please tell me “Please tell me INCLUDE FOOD BOTH EATEN COMMUNALLY IN BACK TO THE TOP ate [FOOD ITEM] in the If your family ate part but IF QUANTITY IS EQUAL, how much it would how much it would THE HOUSEHOLD AND SEPARATELY BY OF THE LIST. FOR past week." How much of what you ate not all of something you GO TO NEXT ITEM. have cost to buy have cost to buy INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. DO NOT FOOD ITEMS came from purchases? purchased, estimate that much [FOOD that much [FOOD INCLUDE FOOD OR DRINKS EATEN IN SELECTED 1 (YES), How much in total did your what you spent only on How much of what you ate ITEM] if you had ITEM] if you had RESTAURANTS, WHICH ARE MEASURED ASK QS. 8.103 TO household eat in the past IF 8.104A = 0, THEN SKIP the part that was came from your household’s to purchase it in How much came from gifts to purchase it in SEPARATELY 8.107C week (7 days)? TO 8.106A consumed. own production? the market today.” and other sources? the market today." YES=1 NO=2 8 I EM T 8.103A .103B 8.104A 8.104B 8.106A 8.106B 8.107A 8.107B FOOD ITEMS KES KES KES CODE DON'T KNOW=8 QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE - FOOD CONSUMPTION OVER PAST 7 DAYS ASK THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. FOR THIS MODULE ASK WHOEVER IS MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT FOODS THE HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS HAVE EATEN IN THE PAST WEEK. FOR THE SUBSEQUENT MODULES, ASK THE PERSON WHO IS 8.1a MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT OTHER HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES, INCLUDING NON-FOOD ITEMS THAT HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS HAVE BOUGHT. 8.1b CHECK THE INFORMED CONSENT REGISTER AND ENSURE THAT THE RESPONDENT(S) TO THIS MODULE HAS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED INFORMED CONSENT; IF NOT, ADMINISTER THE INFORMED CONSENT FOR THIS MODULE. HH 8.101 8.102 8.103 8.104 8.105 8.106 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 93 8.101 8.102 8.103 8.104 8.105 8.106 8.106C 8.107 8.107C FIRST SELECT 1 CHECK 8.107A. (YES), 2 (NO), OR 8 How much did you spend CHECK 8.106A Over the past one week (7 days), did you or others in (DK) FOR ALL THE on what was eaten in the IF 8.106A IS > 0, IF 8.107A IS your household eat any [FOOD ITEM]? FOOD ITEMS FROM "Earlier, you told me you or past week (7 days)? ASK: > 0, ASK: 7001 TO 7186. GO other household members CHECK 8.103 AND 8.104. “Please tell me “Please tell me INCLUDE FOOD BOTH EATEN COMMUNALLY IN BACK TO THE TOP ate [FOOD ITEM] in the If your family ate part but IF QUANTITY IS EQUAL, how much it would how much it would THE HOUSEHOLD AND SEPARATELY BY OF THE LIST. FOR past week." How much of what you ate not all of something you GO TO NEXT ITEM. have cost to buy have cost to buy INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. DO NOT FOOD ITEMS came from purchases? purchased, estimate that much [FOOD that much [FOOD INCLUDE FOOD OR DRINKS EATEN IN SELECTED 1 (YES), How much in total did your what you spent only on How much of what you ate ITEM] if you had ITEM] if you had RESTAURANTS, WHICH ARE MEASURED ASK QS. 8.103 TO household eat in the past IF 8.104A = 0, THEN SKIP the part that was came from your household’s to purchase it in How much came from gifts to purchase it in SEPARATELY 8.107C week (7 days)? TO 8.106A consumed. own production? the market today.” and other sources? the market today." ITEM YES=1 NO=2 8.103A 8.103B 8.104A 8.104B 8.106A 8.106B 8.107A 8.107B FOOD ITEMS KES KES KES CODE DON'T KNOW=8 QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT 8017 Millet flour 8018 Sorghum flour 8019 Wheat grain 8020 Other cereals (specify) ROOTS, TUBERS, AND PLANTAINS (8021-8031) 8021 Cassava tubers 8022 Cassava flour 8023 White sweet potato 8024 Orange sweet potato 8025 Irish potato 8026 Potato crisps 8027 Plantain, cooking banana 8028 Cocoyam 8029 Yam 8030 Arrowroot 8031 Other roots, tubers, or plantains (specify) NUTS AND PULSES (8036-8046) 8036 Pigeonpea 8037 Groundnut 8038 Groundnut flour 8039 Soybean flour 8040 Ground bean (bean flour) 8041 Cowpea 8042 Macadamia nuts 8043 Black grams 8044 Green grams 8045 Common bean 8046 Other nuts or pulses (specify ) 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 94 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 8.101 8.102 8.103 8.104 8.105 8.106 8.106C 8.107 8.107C FIRST SELECT 1 CHECK 8.107A. (YES), 2 (NO), OR 8 How much did you spend CHECK 8.106A Over the past one week (7 days), did you or others in (DK) FOR ALL THE on what was eaten in the IF 8.106A IS > 0, IF 8.107A IS your household eat any [FOOD ITEM]? FOOD ITEMS FROM "Earlier, you told me you or past week (7 days)? ASK: > 0, ASK: 7001 TO 7186. GO other household members CHECK 8.103 AND 8.104. “Please tell me “Please tell me INCLUDE FOOD BOTH EATEN COMMUNALLY IN BACK TO THE TOP ate [FOOD ITEM] in the If your family ate part but IF QUANTITY IS EQUAL, how much it would how much it would THE HOUSEHOLD AND SEPARATELY BY OF THE LIST. FOR past week." How much of what you ate not all of something you GO TO NEXT ITEM. have cost to buy have cost to buy INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. DO NOT FOOD ITEMS came from purchases? purchased, estimate that much [FOOD that much [FOOD INCLUDE FOOD OR DRINKS EATEN IN SELECTED 1 (YES), How much in total did your what you spent only on How much of what you ate ITEM] if you had ITEM] if you had RESTAURANTS, WHICH ARE MEASURED ASK QS. 8.103 TO household eat in the past IF 8.104A = 0, THEN SKIP the part that was came from your household’s to purchase it in How much came from gifts to purchase it in SEPARATELY 8.107C week (7 days)? TO 8.106A consumed. own production? the market today.” and other sources? the market today." ITEM YES=1 NO=2 8.103A 8.103B 8.104A 8.104B 8.106A 8.106B 8.107A 8.107B FOOD ITEMS KES KES KES CODE DON'T KNOW=8 QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 VEGETABLES (8051-8068) 8051 Onion, fresh or processed 8052 Cabbage, fresh or processed 8053 Pumpkin leaves, fresh or processed 8054 Kale, fresh or processed 8055 Gathered wild green leaves 8056 Tomato, fresh or processed 8057 Cucumber, fresh or processed 8058 Pumpkin/butternut, fresh or processed 8059 Okra/lady finger, fresh or processed 8060 Mushroom, fresh or processed 8061 Amaranths 8062 Spinach 8063 Eggplant 8064 Carrot 8065 Green beans 8066 Bean leaves 8067 Cowpea leaves 8068 Other vegetables (specify) Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 95 8.101 8.102 8.103 8.104 8.105 8.106 8.106C 8.107 8.107C FIRST SELECT 1 CHECK 8.107A. (YES), 2 (NO), OR 8 How much did you spend CHECK 8.106A Over the past one week (7 days), did you or others in (DK) FOR ALL THE on what was eaten in the IF 8.106A IS > 0, IF 8.107A IS your household eat any [FOOD ITEM]? FOOD ITEMS FROM "Earlier, you told me you or past week (7 days)? ASK: > 0, ASK: 7001 TO 7186. GO other household members CHECK 8.103 AND 8.104. “Please tell me “Please tell me INCLUDE FOOD BOTH EATEN COMMUNALLY IN BACK TO THE TOP ate [FOOD ITEM] in the If your family ate part but IF QUANTITY IS EQUAL, how much it would how much it would THE HOUSEHOLD AND SEPARATELY BY OF THE LIST. FOR past week." How much of what you ate not all of something you GO TO NEXT ITEM. have cost to buy have cost to buy INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. DO NOT FOOD ITEMS came from purchases? purchased, estimate that much [FOOD that much [FOOD INCLUDE FOOD OR DRINKS EATEN IN SELECTED 1 (YES), How much in total did your what you spent only on How much of what you ate ITEM] if you had ITEM] if you had RESTAURANTS, WHICH ARE MEASURED ASK QS. 8.103 TO household eat in the past IF 8.104A = 0, THEN SKIP the part that was came from your household’s to purchase it in How much came from gifts to purchase it in SEPARATELY 8.107C week (7 days)? TO 8.106A consumed. own production? the market today.” and other sources? the market today." ITEM YES=1 NO=2 8.103A 8.103B 8.104A 8.104B 8.106A 8.106B 8.107A 8.107B FOOD ITEMS KES KES KES CODE DON'T KNOW=8 QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 MEAT, FISH, AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS (8069-8085) 8069 Eggs 8070 Dried fish 8071 Fresh fish 8072 Beef 8073 Goat 8074 Pork 8075 Mutton (sheep meat) 8076 Chicken 8077 Other poultry - guinea fowl, doves, etc. 8078 Small animal - rabbit, mice, etc. 8079 Termites, other insects, for example caterpillar 8080 Tinned meat or fish 8081 Smoked fish 8082 Fish Soup/Sauce 8083 Omena (dagaa) fish 8084 Camel 8085 Other meat (specify) 8086 Animal blood IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 96 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 8.101 8.102 8.103 8.104 8.105 8.106 8.106C 8.107 8.107C FIRST SELECT 1 CHECK 8.107A. (YES), 2 (NO), OR 8 How much did you spend CHECK 8.106A Over the past one week (7 days), did you or others in (DK) FOR ALL THE on what was eaten in the IF 8.106A IS > 0, IF 8.107A IS your household eat any [FOOD ITEM]? FOOD ITEMS FROM "Earlier, you told me you or past week (7 days)? ASK: > 0, ASK: 7001 TO 7186. GO other household members CHECK 8.103 AND 8.104. “Please tell me “Please tell me INCLUDE FOOD BOTH EATEN COMMUNALLY IN BACK TO THE TOP ate [FOOD ITEM] in the If your family ate part but IF QUANTITY IS EQUAL, how much it would how much it would THE HOUSEHOLD AND SEPARATELY BY OF THE LIST. FOR past week." How much of what you ate not all of something you GO TO NEXT ITEM. have cost to buy have cost to buy INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. DO NOT FOOD ITEMS came from purchases? purchased, estimate that much [FOOD that much [FOOD INCLUDE FOOD OR DRINKS EATEN IN SELECTED 1 (YES), How much in total did your what you spent only on How much of what you ate ITEM] if you had ITEM] if you had RESTAURANTS, WHICH ARE MEASURED ASK QS. 8.103 TO household eat in the past IF 8.104A = 0, THEN SKIP the part that was came from your household’s to purchase it in How much came from gifts to purchase it in SEPARATELY 8.107C week (7 days)? TO 8.106A consumed. own production? the market today.” and other sources? the market today." ITEM YES=1 NO=2 8.103A 8.103B 8.104A 8.104B 8.106A 8.106B 8.107A 8.107B FOOD ITEMS KES KES KES CODE DON'T KNOW=8 QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 FRUITS (8089-8102) 8089 Mango 8090 Banana 8091 Citrus – orange, lemon, tangerine, etc. 8092 Pineapple 8093 Papaya/pawpaw 8094 Guava 8095 Avocado 8096 Wild fruit (wild berries, mulberry, zambarau, etc.) 8097 Apple 8098 Watermelon 8099 Plums 8100 Ebei 8101 Ngakalalio 8102 Other fruits (specify) 8103 Other fruits (specify) 8104 Other fruits (specify) 8105 Other fruits (specify) 8106 Other fruits (specify) 8107 Other fruits (specify) 8108 Other fruits (specify) Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 97 8.101 8.102 8.103 8.104 8.105 8.106 8.106C 8.107 8.107C FIRST SELECT 1 CHECK 8.107A. (YES), 2 (NO), OR 8 How much did you spend CHECK 8.106A Over the past one week (7 days), did you or others in (DK) FOR ALL THE on what was eaten in the IF 8.106A IS > 0, IF 8.107A IS your household eat any [FOOD ITEM]? FOOD ITEMS FROM "Earlier, you told me you or past week (7 days)? ASK: > 0, ASK: 7001 TO 7186. GO other household members CHECK 8.103 AND 8.104. “Please tell me “Please tell me INCLUDE FOOD BOTH EATEN COMMUNALLY IN BACK TO THE TOP ate [FOOD ITEM] in the If your family ate part but IF QUANTITY IS EQUAL, how much it would how much it would THE HOUSEHOLD AND SEPARATELY BY OF THE LIST. FOR past week." How much of what you ate not all of something you GO TO NEXT ITEM. have cost to buy have cost to buy INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. DO NOT FOOD ITEMS came from purchases? purchased, estimate that much [FOOD that much [FOOD INCLUDE FOOD OR DRINKS EATEN IN SELECTED 1 (YES), How much in total did your what you spent only on How much of what you ate ITEM] if you had ITEM] if you had RESTAURANTS, WHICH ARE MEASURED ASK QS. 8.103 TO household eat in the past IF 8.104A = 0, THEN SKIP the part that was came from your household’s to purchase it in How much came from gifts to purchase it in SEPARATELY 8.107C week (7 days)? TO 8.106A consumed. own production? the market today.” and other sources? the market today." ITEM YES=1 NO=2 8.103A 8.103B 8.104A 8.104B 8.106A 8.106B 8.107A 8.107B FOOD ITEMS KES KES KES CODE DON'T KNOW=8 QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS (8109-8117) 8109 Fresh milk 8110 Powdered milk 8111 Margarine 8112 Butter 8113 Soured milk 8114 Yoghurt 8115 Cheese 8116 Infant feeding formula (for bottle) 8117 Other milk (specify) SUGAR, FATS, AND OILS (8124-8131) 8124 Sugar 8125 Sugar Cane (chewing) 8126 Cooking oil (in liquid form) 8127 Ghee 8128 Jaggery sugar 8129 Cooking fat/lard 8130 Margarine 8131 Other sugars, fats, or oils (specify) IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 98 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 8.101 8.102 8.103 8.104 8.105 8.106 8.106C 8.107 8.107C FIRST SELECT 1 CHECK 8.107A. (YES), 2 (NO), OR 8 How much did you spend CHECK 8.106A Over the past one week (7 days), did you or others in (DK) FOR ALL THE on what was eaten in the IF 8.106A IS > 0, IF 8.107A IS your household eat any [FOOD ITEM]? FOOD ITEMS FROM "Earlier, you told me you or past week (7 days)? ASK: > 0, ASK: 7001 TO 7186. GO other household members CHECK 8.103 AND 8.104. “Please tell me “Please tell me INCLUDE FOOD BOTH EATEN COMMUNALLY IN BACK TO THE TOP ate [FOOD ITEM] in the If your family ate part but IF QUANTITY IS EQUAL, how much it would how much it would THE HOUSEHOLD AND SEPARATELY BY OF THE LIST. FOR past week." How much of what you ate not all of something you GO TO NEXT ITEM. have cost to buy have cost to buy INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. DO NOT FOOD ITEMS came from purchases? purchased, estimate that much [FOOD that much [FOOD INCLUDE FOOD OR DRINKS EATEN IN SELECTED 1 (YES), How much in total did your what you spent only on How much of what you ate ITEM] if you had ITEM] if you had RESTAURANTS, WHICH ARE MEASURED ASK QS. 8.103 TO household eat in the past IF 8.104A = 0, THEN SKIP the part that was came from your household’s to purchase it in How much came from gifts to purchase it in SEPARATELY 8.107C week (7 days)? TO 8.106A consumed. own production? the market today.” and other sources? the market today." ITEM YES=1 NO=2 8.103A 8.103B 8.104A 8.104B 8.106A 8.106B 8.107A 8.107B FOOD ITEMS KES KES KES CODE DON'T KNOW=8 QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 BEVERAGES (8134-8148) 8134 Tea leaves (unprepared) 8135 Coffee – instant (unprepared) 8136 Cocoa/drinking chocolate (Milo/Raha) (unprepared) 8137 Squash (Sobo drink, Quencher, concentrate) 8138 Fruit juice (boxed for example Delmonte juice ) 8139 Freezes (flavoured ice) 8140 Soft drinks (Coca-cola, Fanta, Sprite, etc.) 8141 Sealed, bottled water (Keringet, Dasani, etc.) 8142 Bottled / canned beer (Tusker, etc.) 8143 Traditional beer (Busaa, Muratina, etc.) 8144 Wine or commercial liquor/spirits 8145 Locally brewed liquor (Changaa, etc.) 8146 Tea bags (unprepared) 8147 Coffe beans – ground (unprepared) 8148 Other beverages (specify) SPICES AND MISCELLANEOUS (8152-8161) 8152 Salt 8153 Spices 8154 Yeast, baking powder, bicarbonate of soda 8155 Tomato sauce (bottle) 8156 Hot sauce (chilli, etc…) 8157 Jam, jelly 8158 Sweets, candy, chocolates 8159 Honey 8160 Peanut butter 8161 Other spices, condiments, etc. (specify) Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 99 8.101 8.102 8.103 8.104 8.105 8.106 8.106C 8.107 8.107C FIRST SELECT 1 CHECK 8.107A. (YES), 2 (NO), OR 8 How much did you spend CHECK 8.106A Over the past one week (7 days), did you or others in (DK) FOR ALL THE on what was eaten in the IF 8.106A IS > 0, IF 8.107A IS your household eat any [FOOD ITEM]? FOOD ITEMS FROM "Earlier, you told me you or past week (7 days)? ASK: > 0, ASK: 7001 TO 7186. GO other household members CHECK 8.103 AND 8.104. “Please tell me “Please tell me INCLUDE FOOD BOTH EATEN COMMUNALLY IN BACK TO THE TOP ate [FOOD ITEM] in the If your family ate part but IF QUANTITY IS EQUAL, how much it would how much it would THE HOUSEHOLD AND SEPARATELY BY OF THE LIST. FOR past week." How much of what you ate not all of something you GO TO NEXT ITEM. have cost to buy have cost to buy INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. DO NOT FOOD ITEMS came from purchases? purchased, estimate that much [FOOD that much [FOOD INCLUDE FOOD OR DRINKS EATEN IN SELECTED 1 (YES), How much in total did your what you spent only on How much of what you ate ITEM] if you had ITEM] if you had RESTAURANTS, WHICH ARE MEASURED ASK QS. 8.103 TO household eat in the past IF 8.104A = 0, THEN SKIP the part that was came from your household’s to purchase it in How much came from gifts to purchase it in SEPARATELY 8.107C week (7 days)? TO 8.106A consumed. own production? the market today.” and other sources? the market today." ITEM YES=1 NO=2 8.103A 8.103B 8.104A 8.104B 8.106A 8.106B 8.107A 8.107B FOOD ITEMS KES KES KES CODE DON'T KNOW=8 QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT QUANTITY UNIT 1 2 8 SHADED --> 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 . . 01 . . . 08 TABLESPOON . . . . . . . . . . 15 HANDFUL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 . . 02 5 KG BAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 09 LITRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 BOWL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 . . 03 10 KG BAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . 17 CUP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 . . 04 25 KG BAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . 18 GLASS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 KILOGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 50 KG BAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 BUNCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 PLATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 . . . 06 90 KG BAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 PIECE/NUMBER . . . . . . . . . . 20 PAKACHA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 . . . . . . 07 MILLILITRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 HEAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 OTHER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Footnote: NOTE: ANY UNIT LISTED MUST BE ABLE TO BE CONVERTED TO A STANDARDIZED UNIT. THIS CONVERSION WILL HAPPEN DURING DATA ANALYSIS; IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE IN THE FIELD BY THE INTERVIEWER. GRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 KG TIN 1/2 KG TIN 1/4 KG TIN RESPONSE CATEGORIES FOR 8.103B/8.104B/8.106B/8.107B UNITS COOKED FOODS FROM VENDOR (8167-8179) 8167 Maize - boiled or roasted (vendor) 8168 Chips (vendor) 8169 Cassava - boiled (vendor) 8170 Eggs - boiled (vendor) 8171 Chicken (vendor) 8172 Meat (vendor) 8173 Fish (vendor) 8174 Mandazai, Doughnut (vendor) 8175 Samosa/sambusa (vendor) 8176 Meal eaten at restaurant 8177 Sausages/smokies (vendor) 8178 Mkate mayai (egg souffle) (vendor) 8179 Other cooked foods from vendors (specify) MEDIUM GOROGORO (FAT TIN) SMALL GOROGORO (BABY FORMULA TIN) SMALL DEBE (10 KG) LARGE DEBE (20 KG) LARGE GOROGORO (USAID TIN) IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 100 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS 8.100F CLUSTER AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER 8.100G LINE NUMBER OF RESPONDENT 8.108 Over the past one week (7 days), did any people who are not members of your household eat any meals in your household? 8.109 Over the past one week (7 days), how many people who are not members of your household ate meals in your household? 8.110 Over the past one week (7 days), what was the total number of days in which any meal was shared with people who are not members of your household? 8.111 Over the past one week (7 days), what was the total number of meals that were shared with people who are not members of your household? 8.112 Does your household own a pet such as a dog or a cat? 8.112A Over the past one week (7 days), did your household purchase pet food for family pets like a cat or a dog? 8.113 How much did you spend on pet food last week? 8.114 Over the past one week (7 days), were there any other expenditures on pets? 8.115 How much did you spend on other purchases for pets over the past one week (7 days)? CLUSTER HH LINE NUMBER . . . . . . . . . . . . YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 NUMBER OF PEOPLE . . . . DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 NUMBER OF DAYS . . . . . . . . . DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 NUMBER OF MEALS . . . . . . . DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8.200A YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOOTNOTE: For item 8.108 to 8.115 choose 7 days or a week. 8.114 ENTER AMOUNT IN KES 99998 8.200A ENTER AMOUNT IN KES 99998 FOOD CONSUMPTION OVER PAST 7 DAYS (CONTINUED) CODING CATEGORIES SKIP 8.112 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 101 8.200A CLUSTER AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER 8.200B LINE NUMBER OF RESPONDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLUSTER HH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LINE NUMBER ITEM CODE 8187 Charcoal 8188 Paraffin or kerosene 8189 Cigarettes or other tobacco 8190 Candles 8191 Matches 8192 Newspapers or magazines Public transport - Bicycle Taxi (include any used for school under education costs; 8193 include any used for obtaining health care under health expenditures) Public transport - Bus/Minibus (include any used for school under education costs; 8194 include any used for obtaining health care under health expenditures) Public transport - Other (truck, oxcart, etc.) (include any used for school under 8195 education costs; include any used for obtaining health care under health expenditures) 8196 Firewood 8197 Other (specify) 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES OVER PAST 7 DAYS 8.201 8.202 8.203 “Now I would like to ask you about items that you or members of your household may have bought in the past week.” Over the past one week (7 days), did your household purchase or pay for any How much did you [ITEM]? pay in total? ITEM YES NO DK KES FOOTNOTE: Item 8.203, replace with local currency. Country-specific items can be added for 'Other (specify)' for items 8196 to 8206. If there are no additional country-specific items the 'Other (specify)' rows should be removed from the final questionnaire. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 102 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 8.300A CLUSTER AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLUSTER HH 8.300B LINE NUMBER OF RESPONDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LINE NUMBER ITEM ITEM CODE 8207 Milling fees for grains (not including cost of grain itself) 8208 Bar soap (body soap or clothes soap) 8209 Clothes soap (powder, paste) 8210 Toothpaste, toothbrush 8211 Toilet paper 8212 Glycerin, Vaseline, skin creams 8213 Other personal products (shampoo, razor blades, cosmetics, hair products, etc.) 8214 Light bulbs 8215 Postage stamps or other postal fees 8216 Donation - to church, charity, beggar, etc. 8217 Petrol or diesel 8218 Motor vehicle service, repair, or parts 8219 Bicycle service, repair, or parts 8220 Wages paid to servants Repairs to household and personal items (radios, watches, etc., excluding battery 8221 purchases) 8222 Utilities: cooking gas 8223 Utilities: Electricity 8224 Utilities: Water services and fees (including water usage fees, water tanker services) 8225 Dry cells/Batteries 8226 Recharging of batteries, cell phones, etc. 8227 Air time and other telecommunication bills (e.g., phone service, internet) 8228 Household cleaning products 8229 Personal care services (e.g., hair cuts, hair dressing, massages) Contribution to a rotating credit society, burial society, or other community savings 8230 group 8231 Loan repayments in monthly installments 8232 Other items that you buy or expenses that you incur on a monthly basis 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 8232- HEALTH EXPENDITURES (include estimated value of any in-kind payments, or borrowed amounts) 8240 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 Except for hospitalization, which we will ask you about later, did you pay for anything 8232 related to illnesses and injuries, including medicine, tests, consultation, and out￾patient fees? Medical care not related to an illness - preventative health care, pre-natal visits, 8233 check-ups, etc. 8234 Non-prescription medicines, for example, Panadol, Fansidar, cough syrup, etc. Transportation used to access health-related services or care that did not require an 8235 overnight stay in a health facility or at a traditional healer’s dwelling Other health expenditures: 8236 Specify_____________________________________ YES NO DK KES NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES OVER PAST ONE MONTH 8.301 8.302 8.303 Over the past one month, did your household “Now I would like to ask you about items that you or members of your household purchase or pay for any How much did you may have bought in the past month.” [ITEM]? pay in total? Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 103 NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES OVER PAST THREE MONTHS 8.400A CLUSTER AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER . . . 8.400B LINE NUMBER OF RESPONDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLUSTER HH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LINE NUMBER ITEM ITEM CODE 8237 Infant clothing 8238 Baby nappies or diapers 8239 Boy’s trousers 8240 Boy’s shirts 8241 Boy's jackets 8242 Boy's undergarments 8243 Boy's other clothing 8244 Men’s trousers 8245 Men's shirts 8246 Men's jackets 8247 Men's undergarments 8248 Men's other clothing 8249 Girl's blouse/shirt 8250 Girl's dress/skirt 8251 Girl's undergarments 8252 Girl's other clothing 8253 Women’s blouse/shirt 8254 Kikoy (wrap) cloth 8255 Women’s dress/skirt 8256 Women’s undergarments 8257 Women’s other clothing 8258 Boys shoes 8259 Men’s shoes 8260 Girl’s shoes 8261 Women’s shoes 8262 Cloth, thread, other sewing material 8263 Laundry, dry cleaning, tailoring fees 8264 Bowls, glassware, plates, silverware, etc. 8265 Cooking utensils (cookpots, stirring spoons and whisks, etc.) 8266 Cleaning utensils (brooms, brushes, etc.) 8267 Torch/flashlight/lightbulbs 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 YES NO DK KES 8.401 8.402 8.403 “Next I would like to ask you about items that you or members of your household may have bought over the past three months.” Over the past three months, did your household purchase or pay for any How much did you [ITEM]? pay in total? IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 104 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires ITEM CODE 8.401 “Next I would like to ask you about items that you or members of your household may have bought over the past three months.” ITEM 8.402 Over the past three months, did your household purchase or pay for any [ITEM]? YES NO DK 8.403 How much did you pay in total? KES 8268 Umbrella 1 2 8 8269 Paraffin lamp (hurricane or pressure) 1 2 8 8270 Stationery items, writing utensils, postage stamps (excluding school related) 1 2 8 8271 Recreational books, newspapers, or magazines (excluding school related) 1 2 8 8272 Music or video cassette or CD/DVD 1 2 8 8273 Admission tickets to recreational activities, such as sporting events, cinemas, national parks, night clubs, discos, etc. 1 2 8 8274 House decorations 1 2 8 8275 Night's lodging in rest house or hotel for vacation or personal travel (excluding work, school or health related travel) 1 2 8 8276 Other: Specify_____________________________________ 1 2 8 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 105 8.500A CLUSTER AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER 8.500B LINE NUMBER OF RESPONDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLUSTER HH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LINE NUMBER ITEM ITEM CODE 8287 Carpet, rugs, drapes, curtains 8288 Linen - towels, sheets, blankets 8289 Mat - for sleeping or drying harvested crops 8290 Mosquito net 8291 Mattress 8292 Sports & hobby equipment, musical instruments, toys 8293 Film, film processing, camera 8294 Cement 8295 Bricks 8296 Construction timber 8297 Council rates Formal insurance payments through an institution - health (MASM, etc.), auto, 8298 home, life 8299 Government fines, legal fees, taxes, fees for licenses and certificates, etc. 8300 Bridewealth costs Marriage ceremony costs, graduation, rite of passage for household members or 8301 others 8302 Funeral costs, household members 8303 Funeral costs, non-household members (relatives, neighbors/friends) 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 8303- HEALTH EXPENDITURES over last 12 months (include estimated value of any in-kind payments or borrowed amounts) 8304 8304 Hospitalizations or overnight stay in any hospital – total cost for treatment 8305 Travel to and from the medical facility for any overnight stay(s) or hospitalization Food costs during overnight stay(s) at the medical facility or hospitalization (if not 8306 already included above) Over-night(s) stay at a traditional healer's or faith healer's dwelling – total costs for 8307 treatment 8308 Travel costs to the traditional healer's or faith healer's dwelling for overnight stay(s) Food costs during overnight stay(s) at the traditional healer's or faith healer's 8309 dwelling 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES OVER PAST 12 MONTHS 8.501 8.502 8.503 Over the past one year (twelve months), did your “Now I would like to ask you about items that you or members of your household household purchase or pay How much did you may have bought over the past one year.” for any [ITEM]? pay in total? YES NO DK KES IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 106 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires ITEM CODE 8.501 8.502 8.503 Over the past one year (twelve months), did your “Now I would like to ask you about items that you or members of your household household purchase or pay How much did you may have bought over the past one year.” for any [ITEM]? pay in total? ITEM YES NO DK KES 8309- EDUCATION EXPENDITURES over last 12 months (include estimated value of any in-kind payments or borrowed amounts) 8310 8310 Tuition, including extra tuition fees 8311 Expenditures on after school programs and tutoring 8312 School books and stationery 8313 School uniform 8314 Boarding fees 8315 Contribution to school building maintenance 8316 Transport to and from school 8317 Parent/Teacher Association and other related fees 8318 Other: Specify_____________________________________ 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 107 8.500C CLUSTER AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER 8.500D LINE NUMBER OF RESPONDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLUSTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.505a YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 GATHERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PAID FOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NEXT ITEM GO TO 8.508 SKIP TO NEXT ITEM YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 GATHERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PAID FOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NEXT ITEM GO TO 8.508 SKIP TO NEXT ITEM YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 GATHERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PAID FOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 GO TO 8.508 FOOTNOTE: Country-specific items can be added for 'Other (specify)' for items 8321. If there are no additional country-specific items the 'Other (specify)' row(s) should be removed from the final questionnaire. SKIP TO 8.600A SKIP TO 8.600A ITEM PRODUCT CODE 8319 Woodpoles, bamboo 8320 Grass for thatching roof or other use 8321 Other: (SPECIFY)_____________________ 8.505b KES KES QUANTITY UNIT 8.504 8.505 8.505-1 8.506 8.507 8.508 ONE YEAR (12 MONTH) RECALL FOR ITEMS THAT FOR ITEMS THAT WERE GATHERED: WERE BOUGHT: (NOTE THAT THE VALUE OF THESE ITEMS SHOULD BE ENTERED ONLY IF THEY WERE PURCHASED Over the past one year (12 months) Did your household gather the What was the total How much did you OR USED FOR HOUSEHOLD USE, NOT FOR did your household gather, or did What was the estimated total [ITEM], or did your household estimated value of [ITEM] spend in total on INVESTMENT PURPOSES) your household pay for any [ITEM]? quantity of [ITEM] used? pay for the [ITEM]? that you used ? [ITEM]? NON-FOOD ITEMS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED HH IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 108 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS 8.600A CLUSTER AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER 8.600B LINE NUMBER OF RESPONDENT 8.601 Do you own this house, are you purchasing this house, is this house provided to you by an employer, are you living in this house for free, or do you rent this house? 8.602 If you sold this dwelling today, how much would you receive for it? 8.603 How old is this house, in years? 8.604 If you rented this dwelling out today, how much rent would you receive? 8.605 How much do you pay to rent this dwelling? 8.606 Do you pay a mortgage on this house, that is, a regular payment towards purchasing the house? CLUSTER HH LINE NUMBER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OWN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PURCHASED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 EMPLOYER PROVIDES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 RENTED 5 8.605 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 (ENTER AMOUNT IN KES) DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ENTER AMOUNT IN KES) DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.609 DAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 WEEK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 MONTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8.609 YEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 (ENTER AMOUNT IN KES) DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.609 DAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 WEEK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 MONTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8.609 YEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8.609 HOUSING EXPENDITURES 8.6a "Now, I would like to ask you some questions about your home." CODING CATEGORIES SKIP E8.605A 8.604 999998 8.606 998 E8.604A 999998 E8.604B 999998 E8.605B Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 109 HOUSING EXPENDITURES 8.6a "Now, I would like to ask you some questions about your home." NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS 8.607 How often do you make mortgage payments? 8.608 How much do you pay each time you make a payment on your mortgage? 8.609 In the past one month, how much did you spend on repairs and maintenance to this house? CODING CATEGORIES SKIP ONCE A MONTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ONCE EVERY 3 MONTHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ONCE EVERY 6 MONTHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ONCE A YEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 OTHER (SPECIFY). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 (ENTER AMOUNT IN KES) AMOUNT IS VARIABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ENTER AMOUNT IN KES) DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99996 99998 99998 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 110 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 8.700A CLUSTER AND HOUSEHOLD NUMBER . . . . . . 8.700B LINE NUMBER OF RESPONDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLUSTER HH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITEM 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 ITEM NO DK NUMBER OF ITEMS NUMBER OF YEARS KES KES CODE 8322 Bed 8323 Table 8324 Chair 8325 Fan 8326 Air conditioner 8327 Radio 8328 Tape or CD/DVD player/VCR 8329 Television 8330 Cell phone YES DURABLE GOODS EXPENDITURE 8.7a “Now I’d like to ask you some questions about items that may be owned by your household.” 8.701 8.702 8.703 8.704 8.705 8.706 FIRST SELECT 1 (YES), 2 If you wanted to (NO), OR 8 (DK) FOR ALL sell these [ITEM]s How much did you THE DURABLE GOODS today, how much pay for all these FROM 8322 TO 8352. GO What is the age of would you [ITEM]s when you BACK TO THE TOP OF these [ITEM]s? receive? purchased it? THE LIST. FOR DURABLE GOODS SELECTED 1 How many IF MORE THAN IF MORE THAN IF MORE THAN (YES), ASK QS. 8.703 TO [ITEMS] do you ONE ITEM, ONE ITEM, ONE ITEM, Does your household own a [ITEM]? 8.706 own? AVERAGE AGE AVERAGE VALUE AVERAGE VALUE Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 111 8.701 8.702 8.703 8.704 8.705 8.706 Does your household own a [ITEM]? FIRST SELECT 1 (YES), 2 (NO), OR 8 (DK) FOR ALL THE DURABLE GOODS FROM 8322 TO 8352. GO BACK TO THE TOP OF THE LIST. FOR DURABLE GOODS SELECTED 1 (YES), ASK QS. 8.703 TO 8.706 How many [ITEMS] do you own? What is the age of these [ITEM]s? IF MORE THAN ONE ITEM, AVERAGE AGE If you wanted to sell these [ITEM]s today, how much would you receive? IF MORE THAN ONE ITEM, AVERAGE VALUE How much did you pay for all these [ITEM]s when you purchased it? IF MORE THAN ONE ITEM, AVERAGE VALUE ITEM CODE ITEM YES NO DK NUMBER OF ITEMS NUMBER OF YEARS KES KES 8331 8332 8333 Sewing machine Charcol stove Kerosene or paraffin stove 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 8334 8335 8336 Electric stove or hot plate Gas stove Refrigerator 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 8337 8338 8339 Washing machine Bicycle Boat 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 8340 Motorcycle/scooter 1 2 8 8341 Car 1 2 8 8342 Mini-bus 1 2 8 8343 Lorry 1 2 8 8344 8345 8346 Beer-brewing drum Upholstered chair, sofa set Coffee table (for sitting room) 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 8347 8348 8349 Cupboard, drawers, bureau Lantern (paraffin) Desk 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 8350 8351 Clock Iron (for pressing clothes) 1 2 8 1 2 8 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 112 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 8.701 8.702 8.703 8.704 8.705 8.706 Does your household own a [ITEM]? FIRST SELECT 1 (YES), 2 (NO), OR 8 (DK) FOR ALL THE DURABLE GOODS FROM 8322 TO 8352. GO BACK TO THE TOP OF THE LIST. FOR DURABLE GOODS SELECTED 1 (YES), ASK QS. 8.703 TO 8.706 How many [ITEMS] do you own? What is the age of these [ITEM]s? IF MORE THAN ONE ITEM, AVERAGE AGE If you wanted to sell these [ITEM]s today, how much would you receive? IF MORE THAN ONE ITEM, AVERAGE VALUE How much did you pay for all these [ITEM]s when you purchased it? IF MORE THAN ONE ITEM, AVERAGE VALUE ITEM CODE ITEM YES NO DK NUMBER OF ITEMS NUMBER OF YEARS KES KES 8352 Computer equipment & accessories 1 2 8 8353 Satellite dish 1 2 8 8354 Solar panel 1 2 8 8355 Generator 1 2 8 8356 Water storage tank or water purification system 1 2 8 8357 Microwave oven 1 2 8 8358 Vacuum cleaner 1 2 8 8359 Animal cart 1 2 8 8.708 MINUTE 8.709 OUTCOME OF THE MODULE COMPLETED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 NO HOUSEHOLD MEMBER AT HOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD ABSENT FOR EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME . . . . . . . 03 POSTPONED/UNAVAILABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 HOUSEHOLD MEMBER TOO ILL TO RESPOND/COGNITIVELY IMPAIRED . . 10 OTHER 96 (SPECIFY) THANK THE HOUR RESPONDENT ENTER TIME MODULE FINISHED Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 113 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 114 Annex B: Survey Questionnaires Resilience Questionnaire (Modified Full Household Version) MODULE R1: SHOCKS AND STRESSORS R01A CLUSTER CODE R01B HOUSEHOLD NUMBER The resilience module questions will be asked to the household head, or other responsible HH member. R02A RESPONDENT LINE NUMBER FROM MODULE B R02B OBTAIN WRITTEN CONSENT. DOES [ NAME] AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY? 1=Yes 2=No skip to next module 3=Not available skip to next module R101 R102 R103 R104 R105 R106 “This module asks what shocks and stressors you have faced and the impacts on your household.” Over the last year (12 months) did your household experience [the shock]? 1= Yes 2 = No 8 = Don’t know >>If 2 or 99, Next shock In which month did [the shock] start? Note: If experienced [the shock] more than once, use the month of the most recent occurrence. Enter code from list How severe was the overall impact on your household (income)? Enter code from list Only ask if R101=1 How severe was the impact on your household’s food consumption? Enter code from list How did you cope with the [shock]? Enter code from list Select all that apply Only ask if R101=1 To what extent has your household been able to recover? Enter code from list Only ask if R103=2,3, or 4 Climatic shocks 1. Excessive rains 2. Flooding 3. Too little rain/drought 4. Variable rain (early/late) 5. Hail/frost Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 115 R01A CLUSTER CODE R01B HOUSEHOLD NUMBER The resilience module questions will be asked to the household head, or other responsible HH member. R02A RESPONDENT LINE NUMBER FROM MODULE B R02B OBTAIN WRITTEN CONSENT. DOES [ NAME] AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY? 1=Yes 2=No skip to next module 3=Not available skip to next module 6. Landslides/erosion Biological shocks 7.. Crop disease (rust on wheat, sorghum) 8. Crop pests (locusts, army worms, or animals eating crops) 9. Weeds (e.g., associated with striga) 10. Livestock disease 11. Human disease outbreaks (from contaminated water) 12. Soil degradation/loss of soil fertility/ or salination Conflict shocks 13 Theft or destruction of assets 14. Theft of livestock (raids/cattle rustling) 15. Land conflict 16. Water conflict 17. Gender Based Violence 18. Displacement (e.g., due to oil/gas extraction etc.) IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 116 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol R01A CLUSTER CODE R01B HOUSEHOLD NUMBER The resilience module questions will be asked to the household head, or other responsible HH member. R02A RESPONDENT LINE NUMBER FROM MODULE B R02B OBTAIN WRITTEN CONSENT. DOES [ NAME] AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY? 1=Yes 2=No skip to next module 3=Not available skip to next module 19. Insecurity/violence (e.g., elections-related, tribal, extremism, etc.) Economic shocks 20. Interruptions or delays in safety net or humanitarian assistance 21. Increasing food prices 22. Increased prices of agricultural or livestock inputs 23. Decreased prices for agricultural or livestock products 24.. Loss of land/rental property 25. Unemployment 26. Illness or death of breadwinners, or exceptional health expenses of household member 27. Non-function of borehole 28. Political strife Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 117 SHOCKS CODE LIST R102 R103, R104 R106 Month in which shock started Severity of impact Ability to recover 1. September 2020 2. October 2020 3. November 2020 4. December 2020 5. January 2021 6. February 2021 7. March 2021 8. April 2021 9. May 2021 10. June 2021 11. July 2021 12. August 2021 13. September 2021 99. Don’t know 1. None (the same) 2. Slight decrease 3. Severe decrease 4. Worst ever happened 8. Don’t know 1. Did not recover 2. Partially recovered 3. Fully recovered, same as before the shock 4. Fully recovered and better than before the shock 5. Not affected by [event] 8. Don’t know R105 (How coped with the shock) LIVESTOCK AND LAND HOLDINGS COPING STRATEGIES TO GET MORE FOOD OR MONEY OTHER COPING STRATEGIES A. Send livestock in search of pasture M. Take up new/additional work (casual labor, wage labor) CC. Other (specify) B. Sell livestock N. Sell household items (e.g., radio, bed) DD. Did nothing C. Slaughter livestock O. Sell productive assets (e.g., plough, water pump) EE. Engaged in spiritual efforts (e.g., prayed, sacrifices, etc.) D. Lease out land P. Take out a loan (with interest) from a (formal) bank MIGRATION Q. Take out a loan (with interest) from an MFI or village i E. HH member migrated R. Take out a loan (with interest) from a moneylender F. Migrate (the whole family) S. Take out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives within th it (b di ) G. Send children or an adult to stay with relatives T. Take out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives outside of the community (bridging) U. Gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, church, or other group within community (bonding) COPING STRATEGIES TO REDUCE CURRENT EXPENDITURE V. Gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, church, or other group outside of community (bridging) H. Take children out of school (to work, or can’t pay school) fees) W. Send children to work for money (e.g., domestic service) I. Move to less expensive housing X. Receive emergency food aid from the government or NGO J. Reduce food consumption (quantity/meal; # of meals/day) Y. Receive emergency cash transfer from the government or NGO K. Reduced non-essential HH expenses Z. Participate in government or NGO food-for-work or cash￾for-work activities IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 118 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol R105 (How coped with the shock) L. Got food on credit from a local merchant AA. Use money from savings BB. Remittances from a relative that migrated Shock exposure and severity (cont’d) R107 To what extent has your ability to meet food needs returned to the level it was before all the shocks and stressors you experienced in the last 12 months? [PROMPT] Ability to meet food needs is the same as before the shock………………….1 Ability to meet food needs is better than before the shock…………………. 2 Ability to meet food needs is worse than before the shock…………………. .3 R108 In light of the shocks and stressors you faced in the last 12 months, to what extent do you believe you will be able to meet your food needs in the next year? [PROMPT] Ability to meet food needs will be the same as before the shock…………….1 Ability to meet food needs will be better than before the shock…………….. 2 Ability to meet food needs will be worse than before the shock…… ………. 3 Don’t know…………… …………………………………………………………8 R109 What have you done to protect your household from the impact of shocks in the future? Read list; select all that apply Increased savings……….A Put aside grains (for HH or animals) …………….B Switched to different crop(s)………………….C Switched to different livestock…………………D Added additional agricultural activity………….E Added additional non-agricultural activity……F Diversified into agricultural livelihood……….G Diversified into non-agricultural activity……….H Changed from ag to non-ag livelihood……………………….I Changed from non-ag to ag livelihood……….J Acquired crop insurance……………K Acquired livestock insurance………L Acquired other insurance (e.g., health) …….M Relocated temporarily………………….N Relocated permanently……………….O Nothing…………………P Other ………………X Don’t know…………Y Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 119 MODULE R2. PRODUCTIVE ASSETS R201 “This module asks about the assets owned by your household.” Number owned now 99. Don’t know 1 Plough (oxen-pulled) 2 Mechanical plough 3. Sickle 4 Pick axe 5. Axe 6 Pruning/cutting shears 7 Hoe 8 Spade or shovel 9 Water trough 10 Traditional beehive 11 Modern beehive 12 Knapsack chemical sprayer 13 Mechanical water pump 14 Motorized water pump 15 Stone grain mill 16 Motorized grain mill 17 Broad bed maker (oxen-pulled) 18 Small tractor 19. Hand-held motorized tiller 20 Individual granary (at homestead) traditional 21 Modern silo 22 Grain bag 23 Tarpaulin 24 Bicycle 25 Motorcycle 26 Radio 27. Cell phone ab. Agricultural land (hectares) IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 120 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol MODULE R2A. LIVESTOCK ASSETS R201A Number owned now 99 Don’t know 1 Oxen 2 Cattle 3 Goats 4 Sheep 5 Donkey/mule 6 Poultry 7 Horse 8 Honey bees (hives) 9 Camels MODULE R3. ACCESS TO MARKETS, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES R301 “This module asks about your access to markets and public services.” Are the following services available IN or WITHIN FIVE KM of your village?a 1= Yes 2= No 8= Don’t know 1 Institutions where people can borrow money If yes, go to R302 2 Institutions where people can save money (including VSLA) If yes, go to R302a 3 Primary school If yes, go to R303a 4 Health center If yes, go to R304a 5 Agricultural extension services If yes, go to R305a 6 Veterinary services (mobile vet, vet center, etc.) If yes, go to R306a 7 Electricity from public utility (main grid) If yes, go to R307 8 Mobile phone service 9 Early Childhood Development Education (ECDE) Centers 10 Public transport service (boda/boda, bus) Go to R308 aInterviewer: if respondent cannot estimate distance, ask how long to walk to the location. Assume that 60 minutes walking is equal to 5 KM. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 121 MODULE R3. ACCESS TO MARKETS, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES ASK ONLY IF R301a = YES R302 Who provides this service? Select all that apply A. Banks B MFI (SACCO) C. Community savings/loan group D. Shops/merchants E. Money lender X. Other (specify): _____________ Y. Don’t know >> Go to R301b ASK ONLY IF R301b = YES R302a Who provides this service? Select all that apply A. Banks B. MFI (SACCO) C. Community savings/loan group X. Other (specify): _____________ Y. Don’t know >> Go to R301c ASK ONLY IF R301c = YES R303a Are there enough teachers for the primary school that children in this village attend? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know R303b What is the physical condition of the primary school that the children in this village attend? 1. Very good 2. Good 3. Poor 4. Very poor 8. Don’t know >> Go to R301d ASK ONLY IF R301d = YES R304a What is the physical condition of the health facility used by people in this village? 1. Very good 2. Good 3. Poor 4. Very poor 8. Don’t know R304b In the last year was there a time when your household needed health services but could not get them? 1. Yes 2. No Go to R301e 8. Don’t know IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 122 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol MODULE R3. ACCESS TO MARKETS, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES R304c If yes, why were you not able to get the health services? Select all that apply A. No beds, facility was full B. No staff in the facility C. Health facility was destroyed D. Security problem (e.g., armed conflict) E No transportation F. No road or poor road condition G. No drugs at the health center H. No money for services I. Quality of the service is very poor X. Other (specify): _____________ Y. Don’t know >> Go to R301e ASK ONLY IF R301e = YES R305a In the last year was there a time when you needed agricultural extension services but could not get them? 1. Yes 2. No Go to R301f 8. Don’t know R305b Is yes, why were you not able to get agricultural extension services? Select all that apply A. No service provider in area B. No equipment/inputs available from service provider C. No road or poor road condition D. Too busy/bad timing of extension agent visit E. Quality of the services is poor X. Other (specify): _____________ Y. Don’t know >> Go to R301f ASK ONLY IF R301f = YES R306a In the last year was there a time when you needed veterinary services but could not get them? 1. Yes 2. No Go to R301g 8. Don’t know R306b If yes, why were you not able to get the veterinary services? Select all that apply A. No service provider (vet center, veterinarian) in area B. Service provision too expensive C. No vaccines/medicines available D. No road or poor road condition E. No money for services F. Quality of the services is poor X. Other (specify): _____________ Y. Don’t know >> Go to R301g Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 123 MODULE R3. ACCESS TO MARKETS, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES ASK ONLY IF R301g = YES R307 Does your household have electricity from a public utility (main grid)? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know >> Go to R301h ASK AFTER COMPLETING R301j R308 Can the village be reached by a tarmac road all year around? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know R308a Can the village be reached by a murram (graded) road 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know R309 How far away is the nearest livestock market from this village? _____ km 98. Don’t know R310 How far away is the nearest market for selling agricultural products from this village? _____ km 98. Don’t know R311 How far away is the nearest market for purchasing agricultural inputs from this village? _____ km 98. Don’t know MODULE 5. ACCESS TO FINANCIAL SERVICES/ CREDIT “This module asks about your access to financial services, and your ability to borrow and save.” R501 Have any household members taken out a cash loan in the last 12 months? 1. Yes Skip to R503 2. No 99. Don’t know Skip to next module R502 If no, why not? Select all that apply A. Didn’t need B. Couldn’t find a loan that met my needs” (i.e. “is appropriate” in terms of size, terms, etc); C. Afraid I couldn’t pay back D. No loan providers in my area X. Other (specify) Y. Don’t know >>Skip to next module R503 What is the primary source of loan taken out in the last year? A. Friend/family within the village B. Friend/family outside of the village C. Money-lender D. MFI (SACCO) IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 124 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol “This module asks about your access to financial services, and your ability to borrow and save.” Select only one E. Bank F. Village-based savings group (e.g., VSLA) G. Religious group H. Local trader/merchant X. Other Y. Don’t know MODULE R6. ACCESS TO FINANCIAL SERVICES/ SAVING R601 Do you or any other household member regularly save cash? 1. Yes 2. No Skip to next module 8. Don’t know R602 Where are the savings primarily held? Select only one 1. At home 2. MFI (SACCO) 3. Village savings/credit group (e.g., VSLA) 4. Bank 5. Mobile banking 6. Other 8. Don’t know MODULE R7. ACCESS TO INFORMATION R701 R702 “This module asks about your access to different types of information.” Did you receive any information on [topic] in the last 12 months? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know If 2, 99, skip to next topic What was your main source of information about [topic]? See codes below 1 Early warning for natural hazards (flooding, hail, landslide) 2 Long-term changes in weather patterns 3 Rainfall/ weather prospects for coming season 4 Water prices and availability in local boreholes, shallow wells, etc 5 Animal health (e.g., disease, epidemic) threats/prevention 6 Crop health (e.g., pest outbreaks, disease) threats/prevention 7 Improved crop production practices/technologies (CCA, seeds) 8 Improved livestock production practices (fodder, husbandry) 9 Current market prices for live animals in the area 10 Market prices for animal products (milk, hides, skins, etc.) 11 Grazing conditions in nearby areas Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 125 R701 R702 12 Conflict or security issues 13 Business and investment opportunities 14 Opportunities for borrowing money 15 Market prices of the food that you buy 16 Child nutrition and health information 17 Equal rights for women and men 18 Gender-based violence 19 Natural resource management CODES FOR R702 - Main Information sources 1 Relatives, friends, neighbors 8 Local market 2 Gov’t officials 9 Government; rural development agents, health/agriculture extension 3 Village Development Committee 10 NGOs 4 School teachers 11 Newspaper /Radio / TV 5 Group in community (e.g., savings, forest users, farmers) 12 Internet or SMS 6 Religious leaders 13 Private sector (input supplier, veterinarian, etc.) 7 Clan Elders 99 Don’t know 14 Health facility 96 Other MODULE R8. GROUP PARTICIPATION R801 R802 “This module asks about your participation in community groups and community-based initiatives.” Are any of the following groups active in this village? Read list 1= Yes 2= No 8. Don’t know If =2 or 99, skip to next topic For any HH member who is in the group, how active is s/he in the group’s decision-making? 1. No HH member in group 2. HH member does not participate in decision-making 3. Somewhat active 4. Very active 5. HH member is a leader 8. Don’t know 1 Communal water users’ group If yes, go to R803 2 Farmers’/cattle rearing cooperative 3 Communal grazing land users’ group If yes, go to R805 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 126 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol R801 R802 4 Communal natural resources group (Area Land Committee) If yes, go to R806 5 Disaster planning /response group (Resilience Action Committee) 6 Credit or micro-finance group 7 Savings groups (VLSA, merry-go-round, etc.)` 8 Mutual help group (e.g., burial societies etc.) 9 Trade or business associations 10 Religious group (i.e. Mother’s Union) 11 Mothers’ group 12 Women’s group 13 Youth group 14 Peace Committee 15 Other (specify) ASK ONLY IF R801a = YES R803 Does the water user’s group manage communal water for livestock in this village? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know R804 Does the water user’s group manage communal water for irrigation in this village? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know >> Go to R802a ASK ONLY IF R801c = YES R805 Does the group decide who in the village can use communal grazing land and when they can use it? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know >> Go to R802c ASK ONLY IF R801d = YES R806 Does the communal natural resources group decide who in the village can gather firewood and how much? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know >> Go to R802d Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 127 MODULE R9. COLLECTIVE ACTION R901 In the last 12 months, have you worked with others in your village to do something for the benefit of everyone in the village? 1. Yes 2. No skip to next module 8. Don’t know R902 What activities did you participate in that benefit the village? Read list; select all that apply A. Soil conservation (terracing, bunds, half-moons, gabions, etc.) B. Flood diversion activities C. Repaired/built schools D. Repaired/built health posts or centers E. Road maintenance/construction F. Planted trees on communal land G Formed a cooperative H. Area enclosure I. Improving community access to drinking water J. Repaired/built communal irrigation system X. Other (specify)______________________ Y. Don’t know IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 128 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol MODULE R10. LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES R1001 “This module asks about your household’s livelihood and income-earning activities” What were the sources of your household’s food/income over the last 12 months? Read each source 1 Farming/crop production and sales 2 Livestock production/fattening and sales 3 Agricultural wage labor 4 Non-agricultural wage labor 5 Salaried work 6 Sale of wild/bush products (including charcoal and firewood) 7 Honey production and sales 8 Petty trade (selling other products, e.g., grain, veggies, oil, sugar, etc.) 9 Petty trade (selling own products, e.g., local beer, sex work) 10 Other self-employment/own business (agricultural, e.g., buying/reselling chat) 11 Other self-employment/own business (non-agricultural, e.g., stone cutting, hair braiding, etc. 12 Rental of land, house, rooms 13 Remittances 14 Gifts/inheritance 15 Safety net food/cash assistance 16 Artisanal mining/quarrying 17 Other (specify): ______________________ Note: Enumerator does not record; number is automatically generated. R1003 Total number of sources Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 129 MODULE R13. SOCIAL AND CAPACITY-BUILDING SUPPORT MODULE R13. SOCIAL AND CAPACITY-BUILDING SUPPORT INFORMAL SOURCES OF SOCIAL SUPPORT “Now I will read a number of statements and ask you to respond to each” R1300 During difficult times (e.g., drought, conflict, economic shocks such as price hikes, disease outbreak – among livestock or humans, etc…) members of my community have helped each other to cope. (Scale:1-5; 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree) Read list, single response 1 Strongly disagree 2 Somewhat disagree 3 No opinion 4 Somewhat agree 5 Strongly agree R1302 During difficult times (e.g., drought, conflict, economic shocks such as price hikes, disease outbreak – among livestock or humans, etc…) members from different communities have helped each other to cope. (Scale:1-5; 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree) Read list, single response 1 Strongly disagree 2 Somewhat disagree 3 No opinion 4 Somewhat agree 5 Strongly agree SOCIAL CAPITAL R1304 If your household had a problem and needed help urgently (e.g., food, money, labor, transport, etc.), who IN THIS VILLAGE could you turn to for help? Read list; select all that apply A. Relatives B. Non-relatives in my ethnic group/clan C. Non-relatives in other ethnic group/clan D. No one X. Other (specify): ___________________ Y. Don’t know R1305 If your household had a problem and needed help urgently (e.g., food, money, labor, transport, etc.), who OUTSIDE THIS VILLAGE could you turn to for help? Read list; select all that apply A. Relatives B. Non-relatives in my ethnic group/clan C. Non-relatives in other ethnic group/clan D. No one X. Other (specify): ___________________ Y. Don’t know R1306 Compared to one year ago has your ability to get this type of help (from someone within or outside of your village): 1. Increased 2. Stayed the same IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 130 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol MODULE R13. SOCIAL AND CAPACITY-BUILDING SUPPORT 3. Decreased 8. Don’t know R1307 Who INSIDE THIS VILLAGE would you help if they needed help urgently (e.g., food, money, labor, transport, etc.)? Read list; select all that apply A. Relatives B. Non-relatives in my ethnic group/clan C. Non-relatives in other ethnic group/clan D. No one X. Other (specify): ___________________ Y. Don’t know R1308 Who OUTSIDE THIS VILLAGE would you help if they needed help urgently (e.g., food, money, labor, transport, etc.)? Read list; select all that apply A. Relatives B. Non-relatives in my ethnic group/clan C. Non-relatives in other ethnic group/clan D. No one X. Other (specify): ___________________ Y. Don’t know LINKING SOCIAL CAPITAL R1309 Do you or does anyone else in your household personally know an elected government official? 1. Yes 2. No Skip to R1312 8. Don’t know R1310 How do you (or other household member) know the government official? Is he or she a… Read list; select all that apply A. Family member or relative B. Friend /neighbor C. Acquaintance (members of a group, friend of a friend, etc.) X. Other (specify): Y. Don’t know R1311 Could you ask the official to help your family or village if help was needed? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know R1312 Do you or does anyone else in your household personally know a staff member of an NGO? 1. Yes 2. No Skip to R1327 8. Don’t know R1313 How do you (or another household member) know the NGO staff member? Is he or she a… Read list; select all that apply A. Family member or relative B. Friend /neighbor C. Acquaintance (members of a group, friend of a friend, etc.) X. Other (specify): Y. Don’t know R1314 Could you ask the NGO staff member to help your family or community if help was needed? 1. Yes 2. No Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 131 MODULE R13. SOCIAL AND CAPACITY-BUILDING SUPPORT 8. Don’t know EDUCATION AND TRAINING SUPPORT R1327 Have you or anyone in your household ever received any vocational (job) or skills training? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know R1329 Have you or anyone in your household ever received any business development training (including financial literacy)? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know R1331 Have you or anyone in your household ever received any early warning training? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know R1333 Have you ever or anyone in your household received any natural resource management training? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know R1335 Have you or anyone in your household ever received adult education (literacy or numeracy or financial education)? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know R1337 Have you or anyone in your household ever received training in how to use your mobile phone to get market information like prices? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know MODULE R14. ASPIRATIONS AND CONFIDENCE TO ADAPT “This module asks about some of your views and beliefs.” R1401 Please tell me which one of these two views you most agree with. 1. “Each person is primarily responsible for his/her success or failure in life”. 2. “One’s success or failure in life is a matter of his/her destiny”. R1402 Please tell me which one of these two views you most agree with. 1. “To be successful, above all one needs to work very hard”. 2. “To be successful above all one needs to be lucky”. R1403 Are you willing to move somewhere else to improve your life? 1. Yes 2. No R1404 Are you hopeful about your children’s future? 1. Yes 2. No R1405 What level of education do you want for your children? 1. No preference 2. Any level of primary (but not graduated) 3. Graduated from primary 4. Graduated from secondary IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 132 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol “This module asks about some of your views and beliefs.” 5. Post-secondary (college, university) R1406 Do you agree that one should always follow the advice of the elders? 1. Yes 2. No R1407 Do you communicate regularly with at least one person outside the village? 1. Yes 2. No R1408 During the past week, have you engaged in any economic activities with other villages or clans? For example, farming, trading, employment, borrowing or lending money. 1. Yes 2. No R1409 How many times in the past month have you gotten together with friends, family, neighbors, etc. to discuss issues or share food/drinks, either in someone’s home or in a public place? R1410 How many times in the past month have you attended a church/ mosque or other religious service? R1411 In the last year, how many times have you stayed more than 2 days outside your village? Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 133 “Below is a series of statements that you may agree or disagree with. Using the scales below indicate your agreement with each item.” Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree R1412 My experience in my life has been that what is going to happen will happen. 1 2 3 4 5 6 R1413 My life is chiefly controlled by other powerful people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 R1414 It is not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune. 1 2 3 4 5 6 R1415 I can mostly determine what will happen in my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 R1416 When I get what I want, It is usually because I worked hard for it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 R1417 My life is determined by my own actions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 R1418 Most people are basically honest. 1 2 3 4 5 6 R1419 Most people can be trusted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 R1420 I trust my neighbors to look after my house if I am away. 1 2 3 4 5 6 MODULE R15: GOVERNMENT SUPPORT MODULE R15: GOVERNMENT SUPPORT R1501 Are there any government or NGO programs in this village? 1. Yes 2. No Skip to 1503 8. Don’t know R1502 What types of programming do they provide? Read list; Select all that apply A. Emergency food/cash assistance B. Food/cash transfers C. Household materials and non-food items D. Educational assistance E. Agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizer, etc.) F. Livestock inputs (feed, fodder, medicine, etc.) G. WASH H. Disaster planning/response I. Safety net (FFW/CFW) J. Child malnutrition/infant feeding X. Other Y. Don’t know R1503 In the last 12 months, did you or your household receive any government or NGO assistance? 1. Yes 2. No Skip to 1505 8. Don’t know IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 134 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol MODULE R15: GOVERNMENT SUPPORT R1504 What type(s) of assistance did you or your household receive? Read list; Select all that apply A. Emergency food/cash assistance B. Food/cash transfers C. Household materials and non-food items D. Educational assistance E. Agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizer, etc.) F. Livestock inputs (feed, fodder, medicine, etc.) G. WASH H. Disaster planning/response I. Safety net (FFW/CFW) J. Child malnutrition/infant feeding K. Install water points L. Install latrines X. Other Y. Don’t know R1505 Is there an emergency plan for livestock offtake if a drought hits your village? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know R1506 Do you have an active Peace Committee in your village? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know R1506a Do you have an active Area Land Committee in your village? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know R1506b Do you have an active Ward Development Committee in your village? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know R1507 Does this village have a security or police force? 1. Yes 2. No Skip to next module 8. Don’t know R1508 Who provides the nearest security/police force? 1. National government 2. County government 3. Local militia 4. Community/vigilante groups 5. Other (specify): _____________________ 8. Don’t know R1509 How long does it take for the nearest security/police force to reach this village? 1. Over one hour 2. About one hour 3. Half an hour 4. Minutes Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 135 MODULE R15: GOVERNMENT SUPPORT 8. Don’t know MODULE R16: GENDER NORMS “This module asks about activities that spouses do.” R1601 Generally, do adult men and women sit and eat together within households? Select only one 1. Yes, regularly 2. Yes, occasionally 3. No 8. Don’t know R1602 Generally, do you and your spouse sit and eat together? Select only one 1. Yes, regularly 2. Yes, occasionally 3. No 4. No spouse/spouse absent 8. Don’t know R1603 Generally, do adult men and women sit together at public meetings? Select only one 1. Yes, regularly 2. Yes, occasionally 3. No 8. Don’t know R1605 Generally, do men in the village help with childcare around the household? Select only one 1. Yes, regularly 2. Yes, occasionally 3. No 8. Don’t know R1606 Generally, who cares for your children? Select only one 1. Yourself 2. Your spouse/partner 3. You help your spouse/partner 4. Your spouse/partner helps you 5. No children in household 6. Other (specify) 8. Don’t know R1607 Generally, do men in the village help collect firewood or carry water for your household? Select only one 1. Yes, regularly 2. Yes, occasionally 3. No 8. Don’t know R1608 Generally, who collect firewood for your household? Select only one 1. Yourself 2. Your spouse/partner 3. You help your spouse/partner 4. Your spouse/partner helps you 5. No need 6. Other (specify) IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 136 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol “This module asks about activities that spouses do.” 8. Don’t know R1609 Generally, who fetches water for your household? Select only one 1. Yourself 2. Your spouse/partner 3. You help your spouse/partner 4. Your spouse/partner helps you 5. No need 6. Other (specify) 8. Don’t know MODULE R17. COVID-19/CORONA AWARENESS AND IMPACTS “This module asks some questions about SARS coronavirus 2, also referred to as COVID-19 or “CORONA” MODULE R17. COVID-19/CORONA AWARENESS AND IMPACTS R1701 Are you aware of COVID-19/CORONA? 1 Yes 2 No 8 DK 9 Refused R1702 How did you find out about it? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY. A Public announcement B Radio/television C Health officials (Including Health Extension Workers) D Other government officials E NGO workers F Religious leaders/ church/ mosque G Health Development Army H Mobile phone ringing effect I Family members/ relatives/ friends/ neighbors X Other (specify)_____________ R1703 Has COVID-19/CORONA affected your household’s livelihoods/income? 1 Yes 2 No 8 Don’t know 9 Refused R1704 How has COVID-19/CORONA affected your household’s livelihoods/income? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY A. Inability to access market to sell products or buy inputs (movement restrictions or market closed) B. Inability to access agricultural commodity market to sell products or buy inputs (movement restrictions or market closed) C. Inability to access markets for food and other necessities (movement restrictions or market closed) E. Inability to farm and/or care for livestock due to sickness of HH member F. Constrained access to land GO TO END SKIP TO R1706 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 137 MODULE R17. COVID-19/CORONA AWARENESS AND IMPACTS G. Constrained access to pasture H. Constrained access to water I. Shortage of crop inputs (seeds, fertilizer, pesticides) J. Shortage of livestock inputs (feed and veterinary services) K. Increase in price of crop inputs L. Increase in price of livestock inputs M. Increase in transportation costs O. Increase in storage costs P. Decrease in price of products sold Q. Increase in price of products sold R. Decrease in demand for products S. Difficulty accessing financial services and credit T. Labor shortages (lack of labor to help with farming and processing) U. Unable to engage with other community members in asset-building activities (dike construction, erosion control, road building, road maintenance, tree planting) V. Lost employment W. Looting/theft AA. Inability to access health care BB. Unwilling/afraid to access health care because of the perceived risks of contracting the virus/ disease CC. Delay or interruption of cash assistance DD. Illness EE. Death FF. Reduction in income GG. Increase in price of food and other items HH. Inability to repay loans X. Other (specify)________________ Y. Don’t know Z. Refused R1705 How has your household coped with the impacts of COVID-19/CORONA on your household’s livelihoods? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY Coping strategies LIVESTOCK AND LAND HOLDINGS ACQUIRING MORE FOOD OR MONEY A. Sent livestock in search of pasture M. Took up new/additional work (casual labor, wage labor) B. Sold livestock N. Sold household items (e.g., radio, bed) C. Slaughtered livestock O. Sold productive assets (e.g., plough, water pump) IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 138 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol MODULE R17. COVID-19/CORONA AWARENESS AND IMPACTS D. Leased out land P. Took out a loan (with interest) from a (formal) bank MIGRATION Q. Took out a loan (with interest) from an MFI/RuSACCO E. Migrate (only some family members) R. Took out a loan (with interest) from a moneylender F. Migrate (the whole family) S. Took out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives within the community G. Sent children or an adult to stay with relatives T. Took out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives outside of the community REDUCE CURRENT EXPENDITURE U. Unconditional gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, church/mosque, or other group within community H. Took children out of school V. Unconditional gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, church/mosque, or other group outside of community I. Moved to less expensive housing W. Sent children to work for money (e.g., domestic service) J. Reduced food consumption (quantity/meal; # meal/day) 1. Received emergency food aid from the government or NGO K. Reduced non-essential HH expenses 2. Received emergency cash transfer from the government or NGO L. Got food on credit from a local merchant 3. Received permanent direct support food from the government or NGO CORONAVIRUS-SPECIFIC 4. Received permanent direct support cash transfer from the government or NGO ff. Quarantine 5. Participated in government or NGO food-for-work or cash-for-work activities (conditional) gg. Used physical separation to distance sick member from others 6. Used savings to buy livestock hh. Avoided contact with sick member 7. Used savings to buy productive inputs ii. Washed hands with water and soap 8. Used savings to pay for health-care expenses jj. Washed hands more frequently 9. Used savings to feed the family kk. Sought help at a health clinic aa. Used savings to pay for education costs mm. Got COVID-19 vaccine bb. Used own savings to pay for other household necessities X. Other (specify) cc. Used own savings to pay for repairs to dwelling or structures Y. Did nothing dd. Relied on remittances from a relative that migrated ee. Engaged in spiritual efforts (e.g., prayed, sacrifices, etc.) Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 139 MODULE R17. R1706 Has COVID-19/CORONA affected your household’s access to food? 1 Yes 2 No 8 DK 9 Refused R1707 How has COVID-19/CORONA affected your household’s access to food? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY.\ A. Unable to go to market (movement restrictions or market closed) B. Traders are absent from the markets C. Products not available in the market D. Price of foods increased E. Delay of food aid X. Other (specify)____________ Y. Don’t know Z. Refused R1708 How has your household coped with the impacts of COVID-19/CORONA on your household’s access to food? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY Coping strategies LIVESTOCK AND LAND HOLDINGS ACQUIRING MORE FOOD OR MONEY A. Sent livestock in search of pasture N. Took up new/additional work (casual labor, wage labor) B. Sold livestock O. Sold household items (e.g., radio, bed) C. Slaughtered livestock P. Sold productive assets (e.g., plough, water pump) D. Leased out land Q. Took out a loan (with interest) from a (formal) bank MIGRATION R. Took out a loan (with interest) from an MFI/RuSACCO F. Migrate (only some family members) S. Took out a loan (with interest) from a moneylender G. Migrate (the whole family) T. Took out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives within the community H. Sent children or an adult to stay with relatives U. Took out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives outside of the community REDUCE CURRENT EXPENDITURE V. Unconditional gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, church/mosque, or other group within community I. Took children out of school W. Unconditional gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, church/mosque or other group outside of community J. Moved to less expensive housing 1. Sent children to work for money (e.g., domestic service) SKIP TO R1709 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 140 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol MODULE R17. K. Reduced food consumption (quantity/meal; # meal/day) 2. Received emergency food aid from the government or NGO L. Reduced non-essential HH expenses 3. Received emergency cash transfer from the government or NGO M. Got food on credit from a local merchant 4. Received permanent direct support food from the government or NGO CORONAVIRUS-SPECIFIC 5. Received permanent direct support cash transfer from the government or NGO ff. Quarantine 6. Participated in government or NGO food-for-work or cash-for-work activities (conditional) gg. Used physical separation to distance sick member from others 7. Used savings to buy livestock hh. Avoided contact with sick member 8. Used savings to buy productive inputs ii. Washed hands with water and soap or ash 9. Used savings to pay for health-care expenses jj. Washed hands more frequently aa. Used savings to feed the family kk. Sought help at a health clinic bb. Used savings to pay for education costs cc. Used own savings to pay for other household necessities X. Other (specify) dd. Used own savings to pay for repairs to dwelling or structures Y. Did nothing ee. Relied on remittances from a relative that migrated mm. Engaged in spiritual efforts (e.g., prayed, sacrifices, etc.) Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex B: Survey Questionnaires 141 MODULE R17. R1709 How has COVID-19/CORONA affected your social relations? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY A. Increased violence in household B. Increased violence in community C. Decreased violence in household D. Decreased violence in community E. Better relations with family/ friends/neighbors F. Worse relations with family/ friends/neighbors G. No impact on social relations X. Other (specify) Y. Don’t know Z. Refused R1710 How confident are you that your household can cope with the challenges associated with COVID-19/CORONA? 1 Not confident at all/it is impossible 2 Not confident 3 Neutral/not sure 4 Somewhat confident 5 Very confident 6 Not applicable (not facing any challenges) 8 Don’t know 9 Refused R1711 What would help you cope with COVID-19/CORONA? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY A. Handwashing stations B. Provision of drinking water C. Soap D. Masks E. Gloves F. Better access to health care services G. Food aid H. Cash aid I. More information J . Vaccine X. Other (specify): _____________ Y. Don’t know Z. Refused R1712 In the last 90 days, has anyone in your household contracted COVID￾19/CORONA or showed any of sign/symptoms of COVID-19/CORONA (high fever, coughing, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing)? 1 Yes 2 No 8 Don’t know 9 Refused SKIP TO END IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 142 Annex A: Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya Baseline Study Protocol MODULE R17. R1713 How did your household cope with a member contracting the COVID￾19/CORONA or falling ill with its symptoms? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY A. Used physical separation to distance sick member from others B. Avoided contact with sick member C. Washed hands with water and soap D. Washed hands more frequently E. Sought help at a health clinic F. Did nothing X. Other (specify): _________ Y. Don’t know Z. Refused Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex C: 2021 Kenya Nawiri RFSA Baseline Study Personnel 143 ANNEX C: 2021 KENYA NAWIRI RFSA BASELINE STUDY PERSONNEL KIMETRICA STAFF Director Mehari Belachew Technical Specialist Sophia Githinji Data Processing Staff and IT Specialist Girum Haile CAPI Specialist Geofrey Lutwama Quality Control/Field Supervisors and Coordinators James Munguti Cecilia Thiga Hophine Emaseh Sharon Mwangi Household Listing Supervisors Dominic Kiptore Constant Wanyonyi Kadiro Abdi Hirbo Halima Abdi William Ejore Ewoi Onesmus Mbuko Titus Ralia Ibrahim Lemuya E. Isaac Brian Muema Kasyoka Abdirizack Tache Agrippina Lochamu Lepiir Paul Samwel Echador Lesuper Richard Lodungokiok Bondeni Hassan Malicha Household Listers and Mappers Ronald Kipkemoi Korir Corby Tata Emoit Mustafa Adan Abdirahman John Barnabas Leparmarai Ngithaja Lokuto Sylvester Erick Chiedo Christopher Jeremiah Lesoito Scouby Eweillar Abudho Umuro Abdikadir Guracha Bernard Kalleng Benjamin Lerosion Alibashir Ibrahim Dorcus Lokuruka Loote Veronica Ajiot Ibrahim Abdullahi Priscilla Akwanga Peris Nyagaka Mujahid Abdi Meliza Modo Solomon Lolkoki Asha Dubo Jele Patricia Abenyo Faustine Lepadaaja Joanne Isavari Lokurichana David Silantoi Lengaina Huka Mary Bilacha Natot Maurice Victor Lenaitamany Jacqueline Nkatha Thiauru Salim Ahmed Abednego Yogle Omare IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 144 Annex C: 2021 Kenya Nawiri RFSA Baseline Study Personnel Household Listers and Mappers, continued Alex Mungai Joshua Galgalo Benjamin Leseketeti Issack Dika Amin Siba Abdullahi Guyo Raeli Lenchalote Alex Kimathi Mamo Dub Tumme Eric Lesire Lengees Stephen Leripe Geldo Gina Ailia Leseewa Samuel Roshian Abdi Yeshi Kilta Diana Lentoijoni Cynthia Wamalwa Tumme Dida Wario Lmaleni Lesingiran Jeniffer Ekidor Bole Marsa Gillian Chepkwony Gaucho A. Lolim Kabale Duba Sistina Leleruk Martha N. Longor Fatuma Buhe Esimaboi Mustafa Adan Abdirahman Geoffrey A.Naro Tume Jirma Erick Chiedo Alice N. Ekal Stephen Odhiambo Abudho Umuro Zamzam Hassan Lama Household Survey Team Leads Dominic Kiptore William Ejore Ewoi Erick Chiedo Halima Abdi Lemuya E. Isaac Hassan Malicha Ralia Ibrahim Jeniffer Ekidor Onesmus Mbuko Titus Abdirizack Tache Priscilla Akwanga Brian Muema Kasyoka Roshian Abdi Agrippina Lochamu Lepiir Paul Rani Ibrahim Abdullahi Lesuper Richard Eric Lesire Lengees Samwel Echador Stephen Odhiambo Veronica Ajiot Constant Wanyonyi Kadiro Abdi Hirbo Peris Nyagaka Salim Ahmed Household Survey Enumerators John Barnabas Leparmarai Abdulwahid Hussein Natot Maurice Christopher Jeremiah Lesoito Harun Adan Sheikh Gaucho A. Lolim Abdikadir Guracha Mohamedamin Ali Ibrahim Derrick Mana Chemer Alibashir Ibrahim Insene Gollo Shunu Alice N. Ekal Mujahid Abdi Adan Dabaso Golicha Deborah Alimlim Lomuria Asha Dubo Jele Masaku Kaloki Lokurichana David Joanne Isavari Hakula Adan Akiru Ebenyo Confridah Huka Mary Bilacha Leila Dabbo Hussein Ngithaja Lokuto Sylvester Jacqueline Nkatha Thiauru Sadia Hussein Abdullahi Moru Esurut Samuel Alex Mungai Tumme Dida Wario Mildred Mecha Issack Dika Amin Habiba Barisso Oda Martha N. Longor Alex Kimathi Zeituna Mohamed Geoffrey A.Naro Stephen Leripe Ronald Kipkemoi Korir John Ekulan Abdifatah Omar Abdi Dahabo Abduba Molu Meliza Modo Diba Kalla Diba Celestine Atot Ekitela Patricia Abenyo Sube Salesa Gerald Eremon Ekitela Jacklyne Samira Mohamed Corby Tata Emoit Dominic Etabo Gabriella Naro Esokon Scouby Eweillar Bernard Kalleng Dorcus Lokuruka Loote Kennedy Somsom Lesuper Lenailoj Mbolia Cynthia Wamalwa Rose Kulamo Lesila Lesuuda Susan Susanti Jackson Esinyeni Engo'mo Kanapal Elius Moglan Losieku Lengalei Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex C: 2021 Kenya Nawiri RFSA Baseline Study Personnel 145 Household Survey Enumerators, continued Ann Mumbi Regina Nacha Jalle Winfred Wacuka Kiama Emmanuel Kipyegon Kirui Emmanuel Lenatapale Lekalayo Mbaruka Lucia Vivian Lonyait Farthosa Adam Lengima Lepiir Baraka Patrick Naomi Akiru Long'or Catherine M. Leaduma Lekampule Ltajewa Eric Lokai Charles Gabriel Maina Ubane Jebiwot Kiprotich Gladys Siba Abdullahi Guyo Christine Matacho Letipila Jackline Mayani Mamo Dub Tumme Solomon Lolkoki Anitah Lekoipien Geldo Gina Ailia Faustine Lepadaaja Lepadaasa Sarafina Stella Lolmeweti Yeshi Kilta Silantoi Lengaina Melvin Ndedeu Lekalkuli Bole Marsa Victor Lenaitamany Lenaola Samwel Loeku Kabale Duba Abednego Yogle Omare Lekadaa L. Joseph Fatuma Buhe Esimaboi Raeli Lenchalote Lesiamito Samuel Ltajiren Tume Jirma Leseewa Samuel Risale Amos Lesiokono Zamzam Hassan Lama Diana Lentoijoni Lasapicho Ibrahim Loyee Mustafa Adan Abdirahman Lmaleni Lesingiran Peter Korie Akol Abudho Umuro Gillian Chepkwony Cynthia Herek Nasale Mumina Adan Sistina Leleruk Yattane Galgallo Diba Jeremiah Ltarachwa Lekoli Thomas Lokine Lokupak Amina Gambare Godana Job Ndable Kiambati Lorukala Emmanuel James Loipoticho Wambille Nasibo Josephine Eism Lentaaano Naweli Nanyok Monica Dahato Mirgichan Lekula Bernadetta Naisabu IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 146 Annex C: 2021 Kenya Nawiri RFSA Baseline Study Personnel EXTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL MONITORS Feisal Hassan Adan Dae Bacho Dae Walter Lolusu Lenolngenje Samuel Leparsaiya Milcah Wanjiku Mwangangi Dennis Ondicho Onchomba Yusuf Hajj Shanko Grace Wang’ombe TANGO INTERNATIONAL STAFF Jeanne Downen Chief of Party Mark Langworthy, PhD Management Oversight/Survey Methods Specialist Gheda Temsah, PhD Baseline Study Team Lead Monica Mueller Senior Qualitative Specialist/Quality Assurance Thomas Bower Senior Research Scientist Stephanie Martin, PhD Senior Research Scientist Hannah Martin Research Associate Charles Brands Research Associate Lindsey Deeren Accounts and Contracts Manager Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 147 ANNEX D: DATA TREATMENT AND ANALYSIS PLAN 1. Introduction This document provides information about the procedures used to clean and weight data and compute indicators from the 2021 baseline (BL) survey of NAWIRI, the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance’s (BHA) Resilience Food Security Activities (RFSAs) in Kenya. It also outlines the descriptive, inferential, and econometric data analysis that will be conducted. 2. Data Collection Mode and Data Transmission Procedures The 2021 BL household survey data for the BHA RFSAs in Kenya were collected using Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) by TANGO’s local partner, Kimetrica. Tablets were loaded with the Census and Survey Processing System (CSPro) data entry application developed by Kimetrica. Enumerators entered data directly in CSPro and team leads reviewed and edited interviews in the field prior to transmitting them to a secure server. Completed interviews were uploaded to a cloud server via secure transmission. TANGO downloaded raw data from the server to Drop Box. Final datasets were received from Kimetrica via a password-protected folder in Drop Box. 2.1 CSPro Data Entry Training A total of 144 enumerators42, 24 team leads, 4 field coordinators, and 8 local independent survey monitors participated in a seven-day main training and one-day pilot prior to the start of fieldwork to ensure thorough understanding of the survey protocols, instrument, and the successful use of tablets during data collection. Pre-fieldwork CSPro entry training focused on the following: ● Basic use of tablets, including how to turn devices on/off; scrolling; swiping and charging batteries. ● Navigation of the CSPro application including how to start, edit, save, upload interviews, move between modules, and share modules with other enumerators. ● Review of CSPro-specific formatting and notation that provide instructions to the enumerators. ● Review of different types of responses and entering responses, including programmed numeric and alpha responses, open-ended numeric and text responses, and multiple responses. ● Mock interviews, including starting/stopping the interview, reading questions, entering different types of responses, and entering household roster information. ● Workflow, including assigning interviews, sending completed interviews to team leads, reviewing saved interviews and uploading finalized interviews to the server. 42 Kimetrica trained 120 enumerators plus an additional 20 percent as backup resulting with a total of 144 enumerators trained for the baseline survey (6 enumeration teams per county x 5 enumerators per team per county x 4 counties x 1.20 = 144). IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 148 Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 2.2 Field Quality Control Procedures TANGO ensures high-quality data through a strong emphasis on training field staff, monitoring data collection and quality control during fieldwork. Quality control procedures established in the field included: Fieldwork oversight: Assignment of one team lead to oversee every five enumerators.43 Team leads observed at least 10 percent of interviews conducted by each enumerator with the heaviest observation happening at the beginning and toward the end of data collection when errors are the most likely to happen. A total of eight local survey monitors (two per county), hired directly by TANGO, provided an additional layer of quality control independent of the Kimetrica field coordinators. Survey monitors accompanied the data collection teams throughout the 21 days of fieldwork, overseeing fieldwork and providing feedback to Kimetrica field coordinators to communicate back to Team Leads. TANGO convened daily debriefs with the survey monitors to review issues encountered and how they were addressed. Inconsistency checks: The CSPro data entry application included respondent eligibility checks, checks for questionnaire skip patterns and filters, valid response range checks and other quality control checks, such as checks on the internal consistency of information reported in the roster and self-reported information in other modules. Data review: Team Leads reviewed saved interviews daily to identify any missing or problematic data items before uploading the completed interviews to the server. This included checking that all selected households have been interviewed (i.e., no missing interviews), ensuring all modules have been completed, and updating Field Completion Forms to show the final status of selected households in the cluster. Team leads communicated any issues to the enumerator and retrained the interviewer(s) on the question or field procedures if needed. Re-interviews: Team leads performed spot-checks of at least 15 percent of completed interviews.44 Team Leads returned to certain households and conducted a short partial re-interview of the household roster data, which in the BHA survey, is most prone to fraud or error, and compared the results to the questionnaire completed by the enumerator. Completion of interviews: Enumerators made up to three visits to the household to interview a respondent and planned one to two visits with respondents to successfully complete the interview, when necessary. Few households could not be located because they were absent (i.e., migrated) for an extended period. Households that could not be accessed/interviewed were marked as incomplete; they were not replaced. Field check tables: Field check tables were generated to: (a) examine the overall response rate and response rates by module; b) compare the mean numbers of key target populations (e.g., women 15-49 and children under five) per household reported for each team against expected targets based on the most recent census data; c) assess the presence of age heaping, indicating poor probing for accurate 43 Data collection team were comprised of approximately 50 percent female enumerators and team leads. 44 Spot-checks cover items that are more prone to enumerator fraud or error. In this survey, Module B, the household roster, is most prone to fraud or error. Some enumerators may deliberately subtract years from the age of women who are 15 or add years to women who are in their late forties to place them outside the age range of eligibility for Module E. Similarly, enumerators may deliberately add a year or two from the date of birth of a child to make him/her appear older than he/she really is, to avoid having to administer Module D. Or enumerators may omit a child or woman altogether from the roster listing, and in these ways, they reduce their workload. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 149 information or age displacement, suggesting deliberate modifications to age of respondents to avoid administering eligible modules. Field check tables were automatically generated from the raw data using a program prepared by Kimetrica. TANGO reviewed the field check tables and discussed any issues with the survey monitors and Kimetrica survey manager. 2.3 Data Processing Quality Control Procedures The CSPro data entry program was initially designed based on the English-language version of the questionnaire and incorporates valid data ranges, skip rules, filters, and consistency checks. The Kiswahili and Turkana translations were added to the program. The following quality control checks were used during the data processing cycle: 1) Data Capture (During field work/in the field) a) Identifier integrity: CSPro data entry forms were prefilled with geographic identifiers (county, ward, and EA) and household identifiers (name of household head and unique household ID) using information from the household listing files. This step ensures that the correct identifier is associated with each record and that the correct household that was sampled is interviewed. b) Correct member selection: The CSPro form was designed to auto-fill the respondent selection items with the names and line numbers of eligible members based on information collected from the household roster. This step ensures the correct identification and selection of eligible household members for each module. Discrepancies between self-reported information and information reported in the roster are flagged by the program, prompting the enumerator to verify and correct information if needed. This procedure ensures accurate and consistent reporting of eligibility criteria. c) Range checks for close-ended numeric responses: The program ensured that only values within that range of numeric values listed in the CSPRO dictionary can be entered. d) Range checks for alphabetic responses: The CSPro program was fitted so that only letters listed in the response options can be entered. e) Multiple responses: For questions that allow multiple responses to be selected, the CSPro program was fitted so that responses that must appear in isolation from any other response do not appear in combination with any other letter/number. f) “Other” responses: For questions that allow “other” responses, the program was designed to ensure that responses requiring an “other” text entry are not skipped. g) Blank responses: The CSPro program was designed so that fields cannot be left blank. Enumerators could not move on to the next question without entering a valid response. The CSPro dictionary included pre-programmed codes for respondents who “don’t know” (usually ‘8’) and respondents who refuse to answer (usually ‘9’). h) Skips: If a skip is present, then based on the respondent’s answer to the question, the skip was applied by the CSPro program. Responses that were skipped (i.e., valid skips) were designated as missing (“.”) by the CSPro program. i) Filters: If a question should not be asked, for example, it was skipped. For example, children 24 months or older are not asked about their food and liquid intake and pregnant women are not asked about current use of contraception. In such cases, the question or set of questions was skipped over. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 150 Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 2) Structure Checks (During fieldwork at TANGO offices) Data was downloaded from the server daily and the total number of completed surveys for that day and the aggregated number of completed surveys across all collection days was confirmed with the local field collection teams. The household response rate was tracked and flagged to field teams if it dropped below 95 percent. The numbers of eligible children under five and women ages 15-49 years was checked to ensure they are within range of the expected values. Age data was also checked for age displacement and age heaping. In addition, data from select modules was reviewed to ensure that the modules were completed correctly and that “no” responses for skip orders were not unexpectedly high. 3) Consistency Checks (After completion of fieldwork at TANGO offices) Following the completion of field work and receipt of final datasets from Kimetrica, TANGO performed additional checks and data cleaning protocols that included: (a) consistency checks for information recorded in more than one module (e.g., age, sex, marital status, and work status); (b) checks on numeric responses to identify and address outliers; and (c) recoding “other” text responses and recoding them to available response codes if applicable. 2.4 Handling of Missing Data and “Don’t know” Responses Missing data points are not included in calculations for BHA indicators (i.e., they are excluded from the denominator and numerator). “Don’t Know” responses are recoded to the null value and included in the denominator, i.e., “Yes,” “No” and “Don’t Know” responses are included in the denominator, but only “Yes” responses are counted in the numerator. For example, the indicator on the prevalence of diarrhea among children under five is set to missing for children that are missing information on whether the child had diarrhea in the two weeks prior to the survey. However, the indicator is set to ‘0’ (null value) for children whose primary caregiver responded, “Don’t know.” 3. BHA Indicator Definitions The questionnaire used for the BL PBS was adapted from the standard BHA PBS questionnaire.45 Questions and response options were adapted to the country context, such as those that involve food in modules C, D and E, and F. The survey was also contextualized to capture information on different commodities and improved agricultural practices promoted in each RFSA area. Modules on the agricultural production of livestock were streamlined from the standard questionnaire – i.e., detailed questions on decision-making, breeding, housing, nutrition, and pest/disease control were omitted given that the module on agriculture covers these topics. The module on resilience measurement uses the modified full version and was modified to include a subset of questions on exposure to COVID-19 impacts on food security and livelihoods and household coping mechanisms. Given that self-reported yield estimates are generally unreliable, this baseline survey did not collect information on crop yield. Information on yield from the production of livestock (cattle, goats, and camels) was collected, however, in lieu of self-reported data on livestock weight, the survey asked farmers to report the average condition of their livestock by type to triangulate with information on livestock weight from secondary sources. Data on the average weight for each category of animal (male, 45 Although the primary objective of the RFSAs is to reduce acute malnutrition in its target areas, the baseline survey will not include anthropometric measures because this information is being collected by IPs through a recurrent monitoring system. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 151 female, young, old) was obtained from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries. Appendix D2 describes the methodology for estimates average weight of cattle, camels, and goats. Table 1 illustrates the indicators measured, the level of disaggregation as prescribed in the 2021 BHA Handbook supplement on indicator tabulations, and reference documents providing the indicator definition and method of calculation. Table 1: Indicators measured in the 2021 baseline survey of the BHA RFSAs in Kenya Indicator Disaggregation Level Reference Documents Indicator Description/Reference Sheet1 Indicator Tabulation Instructions2 Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the household, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) Gendered household type (GHT)1 Level of Severity: Moderate, Severe BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 15-18 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 24 Percentage of households with poor, borderline, and adequate Food Consumption Score (FCS); Mean FCS GHT BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 19-21 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 22-24 POVERTY Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy for income) in USG assisted areas GHT BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 86-87 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 89 Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP GHT BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 79-82 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 89-90 Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percentage shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line GHT BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 83-85 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 90-91 WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE Percent of households using basic drinking water services GHT BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 52-54 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 63-64 Percent of households in target areas practicing correct use of recommended household water treatment technologies Technology Type: Chlorination, Flocculant/Disinfectan t, Filtration, Solar Disinfection, Boiling BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 55-56 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 64 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 152 Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan Indicator Disaggregation Level Reference Documents Indicator Description/Reference Sheet1 Indicator Tabulation Instructions2 Percent of households with access to a basic sanitation service GHT BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 57-58 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 64 Percent of households in target areas practicing open defecation GHT BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 59-60 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 64-65 Percent of households with soap and water at a hand￾washing station on premises GHT BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 61-62 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 65 AGRICULTURE Percent of farmers who used financial services (savings, agricultural credit and/or agricultural insurance) in the past 12 months Sex: Female, Male BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 63-65 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 80 Percent of farmers who practiced the value chain interventions promoted by the activity in the past 12 months Sex: Female, Male BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 66-68 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 80 Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies2 Commodity Sex: Female, Male Age (15-29, 30+) Management practice or technology type BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 69-73 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 81 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within target areas2 Livestock: commodity, production system, sex, age BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 74-78 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 82-83 WOMEN’S HEALTH AND NUTRITION Percentage of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) Age: <19, 19+ years BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 41-42 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 53-54 Percent of births receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy None BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 43-44 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 54 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy Age: 15-19, 20-29 and 30-49 BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 45-46 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 54-55 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methods in the past 12 months Decision-making: alone, jointly, spouse Age: 15-19, 20-29, 30-49 BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 47-49 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 55-56 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 153 Indicator Disaggregation Level Reference Documents Indicator Description/Reference Sheet1 Indicator Tabulation Instructions2 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) Traditional, modern BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 50-51 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 56 CHILD HEALTH AND NUTRITION3 Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) Sex: Female, Male BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 30-32 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 36-38 Prevalence of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-C) Sex: Female, Male BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 37-38 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 39-40 Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months of age Sex: Female, Male BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 28-29 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 36 Percent of children under age five (0-59 months) who had diarrhea in the prior two weeks Sex: Female, Male BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 33-34 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 40 Percent of children under age five (0-59 months) with diarrhea treated with Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) Sex: Female, Male BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 35-36 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 40-41 GENDER - CASH Percent of women and men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Sex; Female, Male Age: female 15-19, 20-29, 30- 49, ≥50; male 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50 BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 88-90 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 96 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash Age: 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50 BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 91-92 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 96 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner's self-earned cash Age: 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50 BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 93-94 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 96-97 Percent of men in union and earning cash who report spouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash Age: 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50 BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 95-96 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 97 GENDER CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men who are members of a community group Sex: Female, Male Age: female 15-19, 20-29, 30- 49, ≥50; male 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50 BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 97-99 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 104- 105 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 154 Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan Indicator Disaggregation Level Reference Documents Indicator Description/Reference Sheet1 Indicator Tabulation Instructions2 Percent of women/men in union with access to credit Sex: Female, Male Age: female 15-19, 20-29, 30- 49, ≥50; male 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50 BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 100-101 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 103 Percent of women/men in a union who make decisions about credit Decision actors: alone, jointly Sex: Female, Male Age: female 15-19, 20-29, 30- 49, ≥50; male 15-19, 20-29, 30-49, ≥50 BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 102-103 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 103- 104 RESILIENCE Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index GHT BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 110-112 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 139- 140 Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses GHT BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 113-114 Resilience and Resilience Capacities Measurement Options – Full Approach pp. 30 Index of social capital at the household level Social capital components: overall index, bonding sub￾index, bridging sub-index; GHT BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 117-119 Resilience and Resilience Capacities Measurement Options – Full Approach pp. 29- 30 Proportion of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs Financing type; GHT BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 115-116 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 141 Adaptive Capacity Index None BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 104-105 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 143- 146 Absorptive Capacity Index None BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 106-107 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 141- 143 Transformative Capacity Index None BHA Indicators Handbook Part 1. pp. 108-109 Supplement to Part 1. pp. 146- 151 NOTES: 1 Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance Indicator Handbook Part I: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for Resilience Food Security Activities. Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USAID￾BHA_Handbook_Part_I_Baseline_and_Endline_Surveys_June_2021.pdf. 2 Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance Indicator Handbook Supplement to Part I: BHA Baseline/Endline Questionnaire and Indicator Tabulations for Resilience Food Security Activities. Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USAID￾BHA_The_Supplement_Questionnaire_for_Handbook_July_2021.pdf. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 155 4. Description of Promoted commodities and Agricultural Practices This section describes the commodities and improved agricultural management practices and technologies promoted by the RFSAs in their respective implementation areas. 4.1 Targeted value chain commodities in the BHA RFSAs in Kenya Commodity Implementing Partner CRS MC Crops Cowpeas X Orange fleshed sweet potatoes X Green Grams X X Sorghum X Livestock Camels X X Cattle X X Goats X X 4.2 Targeted Improved Agricultural Management Practices and Technologies Practice IP Description CRS MC Crop genetics (G14A, G14B, G14C, G14D)46 Improved/certified seed X X Use of improved/certified seeds that are high-yielding, higher in nutritional content, drought tolerant (i.e., through bio￾fortification, such as vitamin A-rich sweet potatoes, \, high￾protein beans and pulses and cowpeas), and/or more resilient to climate impacts (i.e., drought tolerant pulses and beans). Cultural practices (G14A, G14B, G14C, G14D)47 Seedling production and transplantation X X Production of drought-tolerant seedlings for grains, pulses, sweet potato, and pasture. Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) X X Involves changing the type of crop that is grown on a piece of land, including farrowing, to maintain soil fertility and/or break pest and disease cycles. This involves rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes such as beans, soybeans, and groundnuts. Kitchen gardens using sunken pits X X Use of sunken water harvesting vegetable beds and pitting to control water loss through evaporation and spoilage. Pest and disease management (G14A, G14B, G14C, G14D)48 46 Applies to all crops (Cowpeas; Orange fleshed sweet potatoes; Green Grams; Sorghum). 47 Applies to all crops. 48 Applies to all crops. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 156 Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan Practice IP Description CRS MC See list of improved post-harvest handling and storage practices promoted by the RFSAs. Soil-related fertility and conservation (G14A, G14B, G14C, G14D)49 Use of organic manure X X Use of manure for fertilization of soil. Organic manure typically refers to cow dung, chicken droppings, goat or sheep droppings or any other waste produced by domesticated animals. Soil testing X X Testing soil for pH, phosphorus, and potassium. Inoculant X Inoculant application in legumes/ pulses to improve productivity Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) X X Construction of gabions and rock terraces to conserve soil and prevent erosion Use of natural barriers/cover crops X X Use of grass strips and cover crops to conserve soil and prevent erosion Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues X X Use of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues to improve soil fertility and control soil erosion Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) X X Planting of agroforestry trees, such as Lucaena and Grevillea, along riverbanks and in farms to prevent/control erosion, counter soil acidification and salinization, and improve water retention and soil fertility Zaï pits (pot-holing) X Traditional agricultural technique used to cultivate and rehabilitate hard or heavily degraded soil. Holes are dug by hand, and are approximately 20 to 40 cm in diameter, 20 cm deep and spaced 90 cm apart. Zaï pits act as micro catchments within the field for collecting runoff water and minimizing erosion. During crop production, inputs such as fertilizers/manure, seed, water, and lime all concentrate in the prepared hole as opposed to being spread over an area in furrow cultivation. Use of minimum tillage practices X X Leave crop residue on the soil surface to reduce water and wind erosion (i.e., by not ploughing after harvest). Soil and the surface residues are minimally disturbed between harvesting one crop and planting the next. Planting nitrogen-fixing trees X Planting nitrogen fixing trees and fruit trees (e.g., acacia) in irrigated gardens to improve soil fertility on the long term. Irrigation (G14A, G14B, G14C, G14D)50 49 Applies to all crops. 50 Applies to all crops. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 157 Practice IP Description CRS MC Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies X Use of micro-drip or sprinkler irrigation systems to increase food production such as vegetables and fruit trees. Agriculture water management-non-irrigation-based (G14A, G14B, G14C, G14D)51 Use of rainwater harvesting technologies X X Use of rainwater harvesting technologies like water pans, rock catchment and roof catchments. Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) X Diversion of water from normally dry riverbeds when the river is in spate (i.e., during seasonal floods of rivers, streams, ponds and lakes) to fill water storage canals. This is done using spurs or bunds that are built across the riverbed. Climate adaptation/climate risk management (G14A, G14B, G14C, G14D)52 Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes X X Use of a cropping calendar for crop rotation by irrigation scheme. The cropping calendar will promote crop rotation and will ensure consistency in supplying markets with commodities through-out the year. The current practice is based on a 6-month cropping cycle, but we will support farmers to come up with a 12-month crop calendar showing the crops to be grown after each 3-month cycle starting on January 1st. Use of drought early warning information/systems X X Use of early warning indicators such as vegetation condition for timely planning and reduction of the impact of a drought hazard. Use of weather forecast from meteorological department which shall be disseminated using vernacular radio stations and SMS based platforms. Early warning information can also be disseminated through the following channel: 1) Personal contact or contact via mobile phones, including Short Message Service; 2) Messages transmitted by community leaders; 3) Messages transmitted by agricultural extension agents; 4) Meetings held by grassroots organizations; 5) Meetings in churches; and 6) Meetings in schools Post-harvest handling and storage (G16A, G16B, G16C, G16D)53 Aflatoxin prevention and control1 X X Proper drying and sensitization of modern and traditional moisture content indicators for cow peas and pasture seeds and proper post-harvest storage of grains. Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, X X Improved transportation of raw milk or fresh meat through use of aluminum cans. Use of food grade containers like crates. 51 Applies to all crops. 52 Applies to all crops. 53 Applies to all crops. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 158 Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan Practice IP Description CRS MC other food grade containers) Use of well-equipped food storage structures X X Use of rodent-proof food storage facilities. Proper air circulation structures. Temperature and humidity control X X Use of shed nets and/or air conditioner or fans to lower the perceived temperature, dehumidify the air, and ensure the proper drying of harvested crops of vegetables. Solar drying for grains and pulses X Use of solar drying equipment to reduce moisture to required levels for proper storage Natural resource Management (G21)54 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species X Facilitate range land rehabilitation through the use of drought-resistant grass seeds and the use of seed broadcasting techniques on degraded lands. Fencing off pasture plots X X Establishment of pasture plots by digging holes and fencing plots with poles and barbed wire to conserve pasture. Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands X X Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands through the construction of soil and water conservation structures and fencing degraded lands from grazing by livestock Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) X X Construction of gabions and rock terraces to conserve soil and prevent erosion Use of natural barriers/cover crops X X Use of grass strips and cover crops to conserve soil and prevent erosion Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues X X Use of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues to improve soil fertility and control soil erosion Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) X X Planting of agroforestry trees, such as Lucaena and Grevillea, along riverbanks and in farms to prevent/control erosion, counter soil acidification and salinization, and improve water retention and soil fertility Zaï pits (pot-holing) X Traditional agricultural technique used to cultivate and rehabilitate hard or heavily degraded soil. Holes are dug by hand, and are approximately 20 to 40 cm in diameter, 20 cm deep and spaced 90 cm apart. Zaï pits act as micro catchments within the field for collecting runoff water and minimizing erosion. During crop production, inputs such as fertilizers/manure, seed, water, and lime all concentrate in the prepared hole as opposed to being spread over an area in furrow cultivation. 54 Applies to all crops and all livestock. Some practices are also cross listed under soil fertility and conservation. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 159 Practice IP Description CRS MC Use of minimum tillage practices X X Leave crop residue on the soil surface to reduce water and wind erosion (i.e., by not ploughing after harvest). Soil and the surface residues are minimally disturbed between harvesting one crop and planting the next. Planting nitrogen-fixing trees X Planting nitrogen fixing trees and fruit trees (e.g., acacia) in irrigated gardens to improve soil fertility on the long term. Livestock management and practices (G19A, G19B, G19C) Use of improved livestock breeds/species Camels Cattle Goats Cattle Goats Process of choosing animals that meet the requirements of the breeding objective and will pass particular traits onto their progeny, e.g., animals that improve both milk and meat production. Promoted breeds include dual-purpose breed varieties developed by KALRO such as the Galla goat, and drought-adapted livestock breeds such as the Somali camel, dairy goats, and Sahiwal and boron cows. Breeding using improved bulls. Use of livestock health services and products Camels Cattle Goats Cattle Goats Use or consultations with public or licensed private animal health service providers for veterinary services such as prevention/treatment of livestock disease production, artificial insemination, etc. Use of improved shelters Camels Cattle Goats Camels Cattle Goats Construction of cages, sheds, or pens (enclosures for holding livestock) using local material to house livestock. The shelter be airy and waterproof. The place should also be lit to facilitate the consumption of food for a long time. Use of improved calving techniques Camels Cattle Goats Camels Cattle Goats Promotion of colostrum intake for the newborn calf to enhance calf’s immune system: The calf must rely on colostrum from the cow until its own immune system is totally functional (about 1 to 2 months of age). Promote general management such as keeping of clean, dry area for cows that are calving to limit the spread of disease in the newborn calves- (Calves born in muddy, damp pens or calves that nurse udders contaminated with fecal materials are at increased risk for a number of disease conditions). Use of improved milking techniques Camels Cattle Goats Camels Cattle Goats Use of food grade containers, udder and teat cleaning using clean water before milking, treatment of wounds, adoption of personal hygiene practices prior to and during milking. Use of more nutritious pasture varieties Camels Cattle Goats Camels Cattle Goats Use of more nutritious pasture varieties. Utilization of set grazing areas Camels Cattle Goats Cattle Goats Development of grazing plans, setting aside grazing lands for dry season, enforcing grazing plans. Improved fodder production Camels Cattle Goats Cattle Goats Fodder production refers to the exercise of deliberately planting certain types of grasses in pastures to improve the quality and quantity of natural grasslands, e.g., use of legumes or oilseeds to produce fodder, or veld reinforcement by IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 160 Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan Practice IP Description CRS MC planting legumes, grasses, or oilseeds to increase the nitrogen content of the soil. Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species Cattle Goats Facilitate range land rehabilitation through the use of drought-resistant grass seeds and the use of seed broadcasting techniques on degraded lands. Fencing off pasture plots Camels Cattle Goats Camels Cattle Goats Establishment of pasture plots by digging holes and fencing plots with poles and barbed wire to conserve pasture. Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands Camels Cattle Goats Camels Cattle Goats Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands through the construction of soil and water conservation structures and fencing degraded lands from grazing by livestock Use of solarized boreholes for livestock Camels Cattle Goats Camels Cattle Goats Using solar technology as a source of power to pump water from the water hole and for onward distribution for livestock Use of water pans for livestock Camels Cattle Goats Camels Cattle Goats Water pans are ponds / holes excavated on the ground surface to collect and store runoff water from various surfaces including from hillsides, roads, rocky areas, and open rangelands. Water harvesting in ASALs is an important practice to ensure water availability during the dry season. Collection of surface runoff water helps to control soil erosion. Use of sand dams for livestock Camels Cattle Goats Camels Cattle Goats A sand dam is a reinforced stone masonry wall built across a seasonal sandy river. Water trapped behind the wall raises the water table in the surrounding area. Water is stored under the sand and is used during the dry spells. Sand dam improves the soil, creating better conditions for crops and grazing. More trees can be planted ensuring more water infiltrates the ground, and less soil is washed away. This creates a virtuous cycle of soil and water conservation. Use of rock catchments for livestock Camels Cattle Goats Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 161 4.3 Promoted Value Chain Interventions Practice IP Description CRS MC Value Chain Interventions – any crop or livestock commodity (G11)55 Contract farming X X Use of contract farming to improve access to markets by smallholder farmers Use of training and extension services X X Storage and preservation farm and livestock products Selling products through community farmer associations X X Promoting the farmers/livestock herders to bring their commodities together to sell on better prices (bargaining power) Improved bulking X X Aggregation of animals, animal products such as milk for better bargaining power Sorting and grading X X Using physical characteristics such as size, shape, weight or color to separate food produce into categories Improved record keeping, budgeting and financial management X Maintaining more accurate records to identiy profit, loss, net worth and to assist in planning of cash/credit needs etc... Value Chain Interventions – fodder production (G11a)56 • Use of improved pasture inputs (e.g., quality seeds) (MC) • Use of mechanized pasture harvesting and baling technologies (MC) • Construction and use of hay stores by farmer organizations (MC) • Use of fodder seeds (MC) • Use of harvesting, drying, packaging, storage, and marketing technologies (MC) 5. Data Analysis One dataset will be prepared for the 2021 BL survey with RFSA and county variables to facilitate analysis by RFSA area and county. The baseline study includes the following analyses: ● Key demographic characteristics of the study population ● Calculation of BHA indicators and disaggregation by key sub-groups as defined by BHA (e.g., gendered household type, age, sex, decision actor, etc.…) ● Descriptive analyses of the components of composite indicators ● Bivariate analyses to explore associations among key variables based on the project theory of change ● Additional econometric analyses as appropriate All analyses will be conducted using Stata Version 15. Results will be weighted to reflect the full target population, for each RFSA area separately, in total and by county. Details of the analyses for the baseline study are provided below. Appendix D2 provides the methodology for calculating sampling weights. 55 Applies to all crops (Cowpeas; Orange fleshed sweet potatoes; Green Grams; Sorghum) and all livestock (cattle, goats, and camels). 56 Applies to all crops (Cowpeas; Orange fleshed sweet potatoes; Green Grams; Sorghum) and all livestock (cattle, goats, and camels). IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 162 Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 5.1 County comparison of indicator estimates County comparisons of indicator estimates were performed for each RFSA (i.e., Marsabit compared to Isiolo in the CRS areas and Turkana compared to Samburu in the MC RFSA areas). Results are reported in a separate table and illustrate where differences are statistically significant. 5.2 Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Study Population The baseline report provides an overview of the size and sociodemographic characteristics of the population in the RFSA areas. This includes the percentage and number of individuals in the following key target population groups: ● Individuals (15+ years), total and by sex ● Cash earners (15 + years), total and by sex ● Farmers (15+ years), total and by sex ● Women of reproductive age (15-49 years) o Married or in a union o With a live birth in the past 5 years ● Non-pregnant women of reproductive age ● Children under 5 years, total and by sex ● Children 6 -23 months, total and by sex This analysis also includes the following household-level statistics: ● Average household size (number of persons) ● Average number of working age persons (15+ years) per household ● Percent of households with children under 5 years of age ● Percent of households with a child 6-23 months of age ● Percent of female-headed households (based on sex of household head as reported in the roster) ● Gendered household type (percent and number of households) 5.3 Calculation and Tabulation of Indicators All indicators are generated using relevant sampling weights to represent the full target population and tabulated for the combined RFSA areas, and for each RFSA separately, in total and by county as specified in Table 1.57 Point estimates with 95 percent confidence intervals and variance estimations using Taylor series expansion will be derived for all indicators for each RFSA area separately, in total and by county. The variance estimation considers the design effect associated with the complex sampling design. Separate sampling weights are calculated for indicators and adjusted to compensate for household and individual non-response. Sampling weights are calculated separately for each county and for each of the following distinct groups by taking the inverse of the probabilities of selection from each stage of sampling: • Households (modules C, F, N, R) • Children under five (Module D) • Women 15-49 (Module E) • Female and male cash earners married or in a union (Module J) • Females and males married or in a union (Module K) 57 This implies a total of seven estimates are produced for each indicator: one overall, two RFSA-level, and four county-level. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 163 • Farmers (Module G) Separate non-response adjustments are calculated for sub-populations with different response rates: • Female cash earners versus male cash-earners (Module J) • Females in a union versus males in a union (Module K) • Livestock producers versus all farmers, specifically separate weights for each of the following:58 o Cattle producers (Module 7.50) o Goat producers (Module 7.51) o Camel producers (Module 7.53) Refer to Appendix D1 for details on the calculation of sampling weights. 5.4 Descriptive Analyses Table 2 summarizes the descriptive analyses that will be conducted for the 2021 baseline study of the BHA RFSAs in Kenya. All analyses will be disaggregated by RFSA and county. Table 2. Summary of descriptive analyses to be conducted for the 2021 baseline study of the BHA RFSAs in Kenya SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA Estimated population in the RFSA areas Household characteristics in the RFSA areas FOOD CONSUMPTION Percent of households consuming FCS food groups and frequency of consumption in days Percent of households responding ‘Yes’ to a set of eight questions on the experience of food insecurity (C16-C23) - FIES (30-day recall) POVERTY Distribution of Average Daily Per Capita Expenditures AGRICULTURE Percentage of farmers by age, in total and by farmers’ sex, by livestock commodity59 Percentage of farmers by type of land access and farm size, in total and by farmers' sex Percentage of farmers using financial services by type of financial service, in total and by farmers' sex 58 The response rate of farmers for Module G differs from those of cattle, goat, and camel producers (Modules 7.50, 7.51, and 7.53, respectively) because of challenges in locating livestock producers in the household. Due to the prolonged drought, many livestock producers migrated in search of grazing lands and water for their herds and were absent from the household and therefore could not be interviewed. Therefore, the response rate for Module G is slightly lower than the response rates for the subsequent modules on livestock production since livestock producers who were present in the household and could be interviewed for Module G were interviewed for the subsequent modules on livestock production. 59 The percentage of farmers by targeted crop commodity will not be disaggregated by sex or age to avoid unreliable results since sample size by county is relatively low. In the CRS RFSA areas where cowpeas and green grams are the targeted crop commodities, the number of farmers planting cowpeas was 0 and 13 in Marsabit and Isiolo, respectively, and the number of farmers planting green grams was 1 and 6 in Marsabit and Isiolo respectively. In the MC RFSA areas, where green grams, orange-fleshed sweet potatoes and sorghum are the targeted crop commodities, the number of farmers planting green grams was 30 in Turkana and 3 in Samburu; the number of farmers planting orange-fleshed sweet potatoes was 1 in Turkana and 3 in Samburu; and the number of farmers planting sorghum was 78 and 0 in Turkana and Samburu respectively. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 164 Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan Table 2. Summary of descriptive analyses to be conducted for the 2021 baseline study of the BHA RFSAs in Kenya Percentage of farmers that plant crops or raise/buy livestock with the specific intention to sell or resell, in total and by farmers' sex Percentage of farmers by type of value chain activity, in total and by famer’s sex Percentage of farmers who applied targeted improved agricultural practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age, by commodity WATER, SANITATION, AND HYGIENE (WASH) Percentage of households by type of sanitation facility, source of drinking water and treatment for drinking water MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH AND NUTRITION (MCHN) Percentage of women 15-49 years of age by food groups consumed Use of antenatal care services (provider, number of visits, timing of first visit) Percentage of non-pregnant women 15-49 years who are married or in a union and using a contraceptive method by type of method Percentage of children 6-23 months by food groups consumed Components of MAD indicators for children 6-23 months by breastfeeding status Breastfeeding status for children 0-23 months by age in months GENDER CASH, ACCESS TO CREDIT AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Distribution of male and female cash earners who are married or in a union by types of livelihood activities Self-earned cash decision-making among males and females married or in union who work and are usually paid in cash or a combination of cash and in-kind Percentage of women and men in a union participating in community groups, by type of group RESILIENCE Distribution of Households by Number and Types of Livelihood Activities in the Year Preceding the Survey Distribution of Households by Type of Livestock Owned Shock exposure index (mean) and average severity Shocks experienced by households in the past 12 months Coping strategies adopted to recover from any shock Adoption of coping strategies by most salient shocks Resilience capacity indices and their indicators COVID-19 awareness and adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods, by type of impact Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impacts on food security, by type of impact Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on food security Note: Results are provided for each RFSA area separately, in total and by county. Sampling weights included. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 165 5.5 Bivariate Analyses Bivariate analyses will be conducted to explore relationships between key indicators and between indicators and important household and individual characteristics. These analyses are intended to provide useful information to help identify sub-groups on which to focus or to help inform program design by illustrating the factors that are associated with the indicators. Differences in means or proportions between groups or correlations are tested using appropriate statistical test of differences (such as t-test or chi square test). Table 3 summarizes the bivariate analyses that will be conducted for the 2021 baseline study of the BHA RFSAs in Kenya. Table 3. Summary of bivariate analyses to be conducted for the 2021 baseline study of the BHA RFSAs in Kenya Impact indicators Outcome indicators Intermediate indicators (1) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI) Poverty/ Per capita exp. FCS/ FIES MDD-W MDD-C/ MAD Diarrhea Agri. practices1 Women's characteristics Age X Education level X Pregnancy status X Participation in cash-earning activities X Child's characteristics Sex X Age X Household sociodemographic characteristics Number of children 0-4 years X X X Number of children 5-17 years X X X Number of adult females X X X Number of adult males X X X Male-headed household X X X Household head age in years X X X Household head education level X X X X Gendered household type X X X X Household food security Food consumption score/group X X Household WASH status Basic sanitation facility X Basic drinking water services X Correct water treatment X Handwashing station with water soap/ash/cleaning agent X Household livestock holding Household raises cattle X X X X IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 166 Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan Table 3. Summary of bivariate analyses to be conducted for the 2021 baseline study of the BHA RFSAs in Kenya Impact indicators Outcome indicators Intermediate indicators (1) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI) Poverty/ Per capita exp. FCS/ FIES MDD-W MDD-C/ MAD Diarrhea Agri. practices1 Household raises goat X X X X Household raises camels X X X X Use of agriculture-related financial service1 Participation in agriculture-related savings scheme X X X X X Borrowed agricultural credit X X X X X Has agricultural insurance X X X X X Access to community-based savings or credit groups Participation in group-based savings, microfinance, or lending programs X X X X Participation in group-based saving programs X X X X Participation in group-based credit programs X X X X Use of value chain activities and targeted improved agricultural management practices2 Value chain activities, Crop, Livestock, NRM – by type X X X X Resilience Absorptive capacity index and indicators X X Adaptive capacity index and indicators X X Transformative capacity index and indicators X X Exposure to COVID-19 impacts Household livelihood/income was impacted by COVID-19 X X X Household food security was impacted by COVID-19 X X X NOTES: 1 Bivariate analysis of each type of activities/practice will be performed for each commodity separately. Note: Results are provided for each RFSA area, in total and by county. Sampling weights included. Some variables may be omitted from the multivariate analyses to reduce multicollinearity. 5.6 Econometric Modeling Based on the results of the bivariate analyses, indicators may be selected for additional econometric analyses. Multivariate regression models will include cluster fixed effects and key socio-economic and intervention-specific factors as covariates to explore whether intervention-specific factors may influence Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 167 the indicators, while controlling for background socio-economic factors and cluster-specific influences that are unrelated to the RFSA. Appendix 1. Household weights Household weights will be applied for household level indicators derived from modules C, F, H and R and included in the construction of individual weights for all other modules.60 Household design weights were calculated based on the separate sampling probabilities for each sampling stage and for each cluster (EA). 𝑃𝑃1ℎ𝑖𝑖= first-stage sampling probability61 of the i-th cluster in stratum h 𝑃𝑃2ℎ𝑖𝑖= second-stage sampling probability within the i-th cluster (household selection). The probability of selecting cluster i in the sample is: 𝑃𝑃1ℎ𝑖𝑖= 𝑚𝑚ℎ × 𝑁𝑁ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑁𝑁ℎ × 𝑏𝑏ℎ𝑖𝑖 The second-stage probability of selecting households in cluster i is: 𝑃𝑃2ℎ𝑖𝑖 = 𝑛𝑛ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝐿𝐿ℎ𝑖𝑖 Where: 𝑚𝑚ℎ= number of sample clusters selected in stratum h. 𝑁𝑁ℎ𝑖𝑖= total households in the frame for the i-th sample cluster in stratum h. 𝑁𝑁ℎ= total households in the frame in stratum h. 𝑏𝑏ℎ𝑖𝑖= the number of selected segments divided by the total number of segments in the i-th sample cluster in stratum h 𝑛𝑛ℎ𝑖𝑖 = number of sample households selected for the i-th sample cluster in stratum h. 𝐿𝐿ℎ𝑖𝑖= number of households listed in the household listing for the i-th sample cluster in stratum h. The overall selection probability of each household in cluster i of stratum h is the product of the selection probabilities of the two (or three) stages: 𝑃𝑃ℎ𝑖𝑖 = 𝑃𝑃1ℎ𝑖𝑖 x 𝑃𝑃2ℎ𝑖𝑖 = 𝑚𝑚ℎ × 𝑁𝑁ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑁𝑁ℎ × 𝑏𝑏ℎ𝑖𝑖 × 𝑛𝑛ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝐿𝐿ℎ𝑖𝑖 60 The sampling weight for poverty-related indicators is the household sampling weight adjusted by the household size. 61 Given that the first stage sampling of EAs for the CRS areas was conducted in two phases (selection of sublocations followed by selection of EAs), the sampling weights for the first stage of probability of selection in the CRS areas will include two probabilities of selection - i.e., the probability of the sublocation being selected and the probability of the EA(s) within the sampled sublocation being selected. The sampling weights for the first stage of probability of selection in the Mercy Corps areas will only include one probability of selection - i.e., the probability of the EA being selected from the full list of EAs that correspond to all of the geographies in the Mercy Corps sampling frame. Refer to Annex 1a of the Study Protocol for details on the procedure followed for first stage sampling. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 168 Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan The household design weight for each household in cluster i of stratum h is the inverse of its overall selection probability: 𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑖𝑖 = 1 𝑃𝑃ℎ𝑖𝑖 = 𝑁𝑁ℎ×𝐿𝐿ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚ℎ×𝑁𝑁ℎ𝑖𝑖×𝑛𝑛ℎ𝑖𝑖×𝑏𝑏ℎ𝑖𝑖 The household sampling weight is calculated using the household design weight corrected for household non-response in each of the selected clusters. Response rates are calculated at the cluster level as ratios of the number of interviewed households divided by the number of selected households. The household sampling weight is calculated by dividing the household design weight by the household response rate. INDIVIDUAL WEIGHTS Individual sampling weights will be applied for indicators derived from modules D (children), E (women of reproductive age), G (farmers), J (cash earners), K (women and men in a union). Since all eligible individuals will be selected for each module the probability of selecting eligible individuals within sampled households is always one. Therefore, the individual weights will consist of an individual non￾response adjustment only. The individual nonresponse adjustment will be applied using the inverted proportion of the total number of completed interviews for each group divided by the total number of eligible individuals for each group. This non-response adjustment is calculated at the county level. The final individual weights will then be computed as the product of the household weights and the individual nonresponse adjustment. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan 169 Appendix 2. Methodology for estimating average yield from cattle, CAMEL, and goat production The baseline study of the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance Resilience Food Security Activities (RFSA) in Kenya (NAWIRI) provided estimates of average livestock yield (kilograms of offtake per head of livestock per producer) for targeted livestock commodities – namely, cattle, goat, and camel. Average livestock yield estimates were calculated based on the methodology prescribed in the Guide to Feed the Future Statistics. In lieu of self-reported estimates of livestock weight, which are prone to measurement error, this study utilized information on average live weight of livestock from secondary sources – namely, the Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Cooperatives’ “Catalogue of Breeds” and FAO Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS). Secondary information on livestock weight was combined with self-reported information on total production and current herd size to estimate average yield per farmer in the RFSA areas. The following sections describes the study’s approach to estimating average livestock weight and handling outliers in overall estimates of average yield. Data on live weight of livestock by category were compiled for the most common breeds in the RFSA areas and were compared between the two sources. Data on average weight of livestock was usually reported for adult female and adult male livestock only, implying the need to impute weight for other categories of livestock (i.e., young stock, calves). Implementing partners were asked to review the compiled data and, if possible, provide input on average weight of livestock for categories with missing information. Based on the available data and feedback received from the partners, the following methodology was adopted to estimate average weight of livestock by category type: 1. Obtain the weight of male and female adult livestock for the most common breeds in the RFSA areas using the Kenya Ministry of Agriculture Catalogue; 2. Take the midpoint of the range for each breed; 3. Average the midpoint weight across breeds. This midpoint represents the average weight of the livestock category; and 4. Impute weight of young stock/calves were data were not available. Since weight data for young stock/calves were unavailable the weight for these categories of livestock were calculated based on the following assumptions: (a) cattle: young stock weigh approximately two-thirds the weight of adult livestock and calves weigh about one-fifth the weight of adult livestock; and (b) goats and camels: young stock weigh about one-half that of mature stock. See Table A1.1 – A1.3 for average weight of livestock by category. 5. Identify and remove outliers. Outliers, defined as cases where producer yield was less than 3 standard deviations (SD) below the county mean or more than 3 SD above the county mean, were excluded from the estimate. An alternative approach to trimming was also explored – namely, winsorizing at the 95th percentile. Given that results from the two approaches were fairly similar, yield estimates were reported based on the trimming approach, which is consistent with the methodology for handling outliers that is prescribed in the FTF guide. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 170 Annex D: Data Treatment and Analysis Plan Table A1.1 Weight of livestock by category: cattle Samburu Zebu Somali Boran Average across breeds Estimated weight of young stock and calves Adult female (kg) Adult male (kg) Adult female (kg) Adult male (kg) Adult female (kg) Adult male (kg) Young female stock (kg) Young male stock (kg) Female calves (kg) Male calves (kg) Minimum 120 150 150 200 Maximum 200 250 250 400 Average 160 200 200 300 180 250 120 167 24 33 Notes: Average weight of young stock and calves were estimated based on the following assumptions: (1) young stock weigh one-third that of mature stock and, (2) calves weigh one-fifth the weight of mature stock. Source: Kenya Livestock Breeds Catalogue 2019. Accessed at: https://kilimo.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/CATALOGUE￾BREEDS-PUBLISHED-VERSION.pdf . Table A1.2 Weight of livestock by category: goats SEAG Gala Average across breeds Estimated weight of young stock Adult female (kg) Adult male (kg) Adult female (kg) Adult male (kg) Adult female (kg) Adult male (kg) Young female stock (kg) Young male stock (kg) Minimum 32 36 45 70 Maximum 36 42 55 75 Average 34 39 50 73 42 56 21 28 Notes: Average weight of young stock was estimated assuming tat young stock weigh one-half the weight of mature stock. Source: Kenya Livestock Breeds Catalogue 2019. Accessed at: https://kilimo.go.ke/wp￾content/uploads/2021/07/CATALOGUE-BREEDS-PUBLISHED-VERSION.pdf. Table A1.3 Weight of livestock by category: camels Somali Gabbra Rendille Turkana Average across breeds Estimate d weight of young stock Adult (kg) Adult (kg) Adult (kg) Adult (kg) Adult (kg) Young stock (kg) Minimum 300 300 250 Maximum 550 500 500 Average 450 425 400 375 413 206 Notes: Average weight of young stock was estimated assuming that young stock weigh about one-half the weight of mature stock. Source: Kenya Livestock Breeds Catalogue 2019. Accessed at: https://kilimo.go.ke/wp￾content/uploads/2021/07/CATALOGUE-BREEDS-PUBLISHED-VERSION.pdf. Lower Upper FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the household, based the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) - 30 day recall 88.4 85.7 91.1 3,873 174,049 28.8 1.4 2.9 Male and female adults 87.9 85.1 90.7 2,851 125,556 29.6 1.42 2.6 Adult female, no adult male 93.5 90.9 96.2 732 35,087 21.2 1.34 1.7 Adult male, no adult female 79.5 72.5 86.5 282 13,019 36.6 3.53 1.6 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 387 ^ ^ ^ Level of severity Moderate 37.8 36.3 39.3 3,873 174,049 22.9 0.77 2.1 Severe 50.6 47.9 53.4 3,873 174,049 29.3 1.4 2.9 Percentage of households with poor food consumption score (FCS) 29.8 25.8 33.9 3,875 174,087 45.8 2.03 2.8 Male and female adults 28.0 23.3 32.8 2,853 125,594 45.4 2.39 2.8 Adult female, no adult male 37.9 32.4 43.4 732 35,087 47.0 2.80 1.6 Adult male, no adult female 24.6 17.1 32.2 282 13,019 42.5 3.81 1.5 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 387 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with borderline FCS 19.3 17.3 21.3 3,875 174,087 39.5 1.01 1.6 Male and female adults 19.0 16.8 21.1 2,853 125,594 39.6 1.10 1.5 Adult female, no adult male 20.3 17.1 23.5 732 35,087 39.0 1.62 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 19.8 13.7 25.8 282 13,019 39.3 3.06 1.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 387 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with adequate FCS 50.8 46.9 54.8 3,875 174,087 50.0 2.00 2.5 Male and female adults 53.0 48.2 57.8 2,853 125,594 50.4 2.42 2.6 Adult female, no adult male 41.8 36.5 47.1 732 35,087 47.7 2.69 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 55.6 47.5 63.7 282 13,019 49.0 4.12 1.4 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 387 ^ ^ ^ Mean FCS 43.8 41.5 46.1 3,875 174,087 22.7 1.16 3.2 Male and female adults 45.1 42.4 47.8 2,853 125,594 23.2 1.39 3.2 Adult female, no adult male 38.2 35.9 40.6 732 35,087 19.4 1.18 1.6 Adult male, no adult female 46.9 41.9 52.0 282 13,019 24.4 2.54 1.7 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 387 ^ ^ ^ POVERTY INDICATORS Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy for income) in USG-assisted areas 2010 USD, PPP 2011 1.5 1.2 1.7 3,859 895,825 2.8 0.1 2.5 Male and female adults 1.5 1.2 1.7 2,846 733,363 2.6 0.12 2.4 Adult female, no adult male 1.1 0.9 1.3 726 137,182 2.0 0.09 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 3.3 2.4 4.1 279 23,991 10.1 0.43 0.7 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 1,289 ^ ^ ^ Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less thatn $1.90/day 2011 PPP 78.1 73.9 82.3 3,859 895,825 41.4 2.14 3.2 Male and female adults 77.9 73.5 82.3 2,846 733,363 39.3 2.22 3.0 Adult female, no adult male 83.4 79.3 87.5 726 137,182 41.2 2.06 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 51.3 40.2 62.4 279 23,991 82.1 5.60 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 1,289 ^ ^ ^ Table A1.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - Combined RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 171 ANNEX E: BASELINE INDICATOR ESTIMATES Annex E1: Tabular Summary of Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - Combined RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percentage shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line 58.7 55.7 61.8 2,701 699,506 25.2 1.55 3.2 Male and female adults 58.2 54.9 61.4 2,091 571,529 23.7 1.67 3.2 Adult female, no adult male 62.2 59.0 65.4 522 114,421 23.8 1.61 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 52.6 42.7 62.5 81 12,303 34.7 5.01 1.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 1,254 ^ ^ ^ WASH INDICATORS Percent of households using basic drinking water services 6.2 4.4 8.0 3,844 173,168 24.1 0.9 2.4 On premise 1.8 1.1 2.5 3,844 173,168 13.4 0.4 1.7 ≤ 30-minute roundtrip 4.4 2.8 6.0 3,844 173,168 20.5 0.8 2.4 Gendered household type Male and female adults 5.1 3.4 6.9 2,846 125,257 22.1 0.9 2.1 Adult female, no adult male 7.6 4.2 11.0 723 34,744 26.5 1.7 1.7 Adult male, no adult female 13.1 7.3 18.8 267 12,780 33.8 2.9 1.4 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 387 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households in target areas practicing correct use of recommended household water treatment technologies 10.3 8.6 12.0 3,887 174,545 30.4 0.9 1.8 Chlorination 3.6 2.6 4.6 3,887 174,545 18.7 0.50 1.7 Flocculant/Disinfectant 1.5 0.8 2.1 3,887 174,545 12.0 0.34 1.8 Filtration 1.2 0.7 1.7 3,887 174,545 10.8 0.25 1.5 Solar Disinfection 0.3 0.0 0.7 3,887 174,545 5.7 0.17 1.9 Boiling 4.7 3.5 6.0 3,887 174,545 21.3 0.6 1.9 Percentage of households with access to a basic sanitation service 7.0 4.7 9.3 3,887 174,545 25.5 1.18 2.9 Male and female adults 7.8 4.8 10.7 2,862 125,912 27.1 1.50 3.0 Adult female, no adult male 4.5 2.5 6.5 733 35,138 20.0 1.02 1.4 Adult male, no adult female 6.4 0.7 12.0 284 13,108 24.1 2.85 2.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 387 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households in target areas practicing open defecation 63.3 55.8 70.9 3,887 174,545 48.2 3.84 5.0 Male and female adults 64.3 56.8 71.7 2,862 125,912 48.4 3.77 4.2 Adult female, no adult male 67.9 58.9 76.9 733 35,138 45.2 4.55 2.7 Adult male, no adult female 41.4 31.1 51.8 284 13,108 48.6 5.23 1.8 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 387 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises 45.2 36.3 54.0 386 16,444 49.8 4.44 1.7 Male and female adults 40.8 31.2 50.4 269 11,827 50.7 4.86 1.6 Adult female, no adult male 54.3 39.3 69.3 57 2,512 49.9 7.57 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 58.6 42.4 74.9 60 2,106 55.6 8.23 1.1 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 172 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - Combined RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percent of farmers who used financial services (savings, agricultural credit and/or agricultural insurance) in the past 12 months 9.0 7.0 11.1 2,710 126,697 28.7 1.02 1.9 Male 10.1 7.9 12.3 1,620 71,424 31.0 1.13 1.5 Female 7.6 5.2 10.1 1,090 55,273 25.5 1.25 1.6 Percent of farmers who practiced the value chain interventions promoted by the activity in the past 12 months 15.4 10.6 20.2 731 33,057 36.1 2.42 1.8 Male 15.1 9.9 20.3 485 20,318 38.3 2.63 1.5 Female 15.9 9.6 22.3 246 12,738 34.2 3.23 1.5 Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies Greengrams NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sex Male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30+ years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved/certified seed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cultural practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Seedling production and transplantation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Kitchen gardens using sunken pits NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of natural barriers/cover crops NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Zaï pits (pot-holing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of minimum tillage practices NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting nitrogen-fixing trees NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of organic manure NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Soil testing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inoculant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 173 Lower Upper Table A1.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - Combined RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of rainwater harvesting technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drought early warning information/systems NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Aflatoxin prevention and control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of well-equipped food storage structures NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Temperature and humidity control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorghum NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sex Male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30+ years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved/certified seed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cultural practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Seedling production and transplantation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Kitchen gardens using sunken pits NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of natural barriers/cover crops NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Zaï pits (pot-holing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of minimum tillage practices NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting nitrogen-fixing trees NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 174 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - Combined RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Use of organic manure NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Soil testing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inoculant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of rainwater harvesting technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drought early warning information/systems NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Aflatoxin prevention and control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of well-equipped food storage structures NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Temperature and humidity control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Contract farming NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of training and extension services NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Selling products through community farmer associations NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved bulking NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorting and grading NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Other improved practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cattle (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 59.3 53.1 65.5 1,041 37,622 49.1 3.13 2.1 Sex Male 56.3 49.9 62.8 610 20,825 49.6 3.25 1.6 Female 63.0 55.8 70.3 431 16,797 48.3 3.63 1.6 Age 15-29 years 63.5 54.5 72.6 184 6,899 48.3 4.52 1.3 30+ years 58.4 51.9 64.9 857 30,723 49.3 3.27 1.9 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 2.8 1.5 4.1 1,041 37,622 16.5 0.68 1.3 Use of livestock health services and products 23.1 18.0 28.2 1,041 37,622 42.2 2.56 2.0 Use of improved shelters 9.2 5.3 13.1 1,041 37,622 28.9 1.96 2.2 Use of improved calving techniques 1.7 0.3 3.0 1,041 37,622 12.9 0.68 1.7 Use of improved milking techniques 0.7 0.0 1.4 1,041 37,622 8.1 0.36 1.4 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 2.6 1.2 4.1 1,041 37,622 16.1 0.71 1.4 Utilization of set grazing areas 22.8 17.9 27.6 1,041 37,622 41.9 2.45 1.9 Improved fodder production 1.4 0.3 2.5 1,041 37,622 11.6 0.55 1.5 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species 1.7 0.3 3.1 1,041 37,622 12.9 0.68 1.7 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 175 Lower Upper Table A1.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - Combined RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Fencing off pasture plots 7.2 2.6 11.8 1,041 37,622 25.8 2.31 2.9 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 1.3 0.3 2.2 1,041 37,622 11.2 0.47 1.3 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 3.8 1.9 5.8 1,041 37,622 19.2 0.97 1.6 Use of water pans for livestock 7.7 5.3 10.1 1,041 37,622 26.6 1.21 1.5 Use of sand dams for livestock 4.6 2.8 6.4 1,041 37,622 20.9 0.92 1.4 Use of rock catchments for livestock 2.5 0.8 4.2 1,041 37,622 15.6 0.86 1.8 Goats (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 48.6 43.7 53.5 2,285 105,838 50.0 2.49 2.4 Sex Male 47.4 42.0 52.9 1,358 59,740 50.0 2.74 2.0 Female 50.1 44.5 55.6 927 46,097 50.0 2.82 1.7 Age 15-29 years 52.0 46.0 57.9 412 18,446 50.0 3.00 1.2 30+ years 47.9 42.7 53.1 1,873 87,392 50.0 2.63 2.3 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 1.4 0.7 2.1 2,285 105,838 11.6 0.36 1.5 Use of livestock health services and products 12.8 9.2 16.3 2,285 105,838 33.4 1.80 2.6 Use of improved shelters 12.4 9.0 15.8 2,285 105,838 33.0 1.73 2.5 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 0.0 0.1 2,285 105,838 2.0 0.04 1.0 Use of improved milking techniques 0.3 0.0 0.7 2,285 105,838 5.8 0.19 1.6 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 2.1 1.3 2.9 2,285 105,838 14.4 0.40 1.3 Utilization of set grazing areas 19.9 16.7 23.2 2,285 105,838 40.0 1.64 2.0 Improved fodder production 0.7 0.2 1.3 2,285 105,838 8.5 0.27 1.5 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species 1.1 0.4 1.8 2,285 105,838 10.4 0.37 1.7 Fencing off pasture plots 3.2 1.6 4.9 2,285 105,838 17.6 0.83 2.3 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 1.3 0.5 2.0 2,285 105,838 11.1 0.36 1.5 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 2.9 1.6 4.1 2,285 105,838 16.7 0.61 1.7 Use of water pans for livestock 5.4 3.5 7.2 2,285 105,838 22.5 0.92 2.0 Use of sand dams for livestock 3.0 1.7 4.2 2,285 105,838 17.0 0.63 1.8 Use of rock catchments for livestock 2.0 0.9 3.0 2,285 105,838 13.9 0.55 1.9 Camels (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 43.0 36.7 49.3 808 30,670 49.5 3.15 1.8 Sex Male 43.1 37.3 48.9 507 17,861 49.6 2.91 1.3 Female 42.8 33.5 52.1 301 12,809 49.6 4.65 1.6 Age 15-29 years 45.7 33.4 58.1 114 4,026 50.0 6.08 1.3 30+ years 42.5 36.3 48.8 694 26,644 49.5 3.15 1.7 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 0.5 0.0 0.9 808 30,670 6.8 0.24 1.0 Use of livestock health services and products 11.3 6.2 16.3 808 30,670 31.6 2.54 2.3 Use of improved shelters 7.9 3.4 12.3 808 30,670 26.9 2.24 2.4 Use of improved calving techniques 0.2 0.0 0.5 808 30,670 4.1 0.17 1.2 Use of improved milking techniques 0.4 0.0 0.8 808 30,670 6.2 0.20 0.9 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 1.9 0.3 3.5 808 30,670 13.7 0.81 1.7 Utilization of set grazing areas 27.5 21.0 33.9 808 30,670 44.7 3.21 2.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 176 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - Combined RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Improved fodder production 0.5 0.0 1.3 808 30,670 7.4 0.37 1.4 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species 0.5 0.0 1.1 808 30,670 7.0 0.30 1.2 Fencing off pasture plots 4.7 0.0 9.4 808 30,670 21.2 2.35 3.2 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 1.2 0.1 2.3 808 30,670 10.8 0.57 1.5 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 5.8 2.8 8.7 808 30,670 23.3 1.49 1.8 Use of water pans for livestock 5.5 2.3 8.7 808 30,670 22.9 1.61 2.0 Use of sand dams for livestock 2.8 0.7 4.9 808 30,670 16.6 1.05 1.8 Use of rock catchments for livestock 3.0 1.1 4.8 808 30,670 17.0 0.94 1.6 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within targeted areas - livestock Cattle (kilogram of offtake per head of cattle per producer) 14.6 12.3 17.0 984 34,000 22.7 1.19 1.6 Sex Male 16.2 13.6 18.9 574 18,815 23.5 1.32 1.3 Female 12.6 9.8 15.5 410 15,185 21.5 1.43 1.4 Age 15-29 years 14.9 10.9 18.9 174 6,210 24.1 2.00 1.1 30+ years 14.6 12.1 17.1 810 27,790 22.3 1.25 1.6 Goats (kilogram of offtake per head of goat per producer) 6.1 5.3 6.9 2,238 94,313 7.1 0.41 2.7 Sex Male 6.5 5.8 7.3 1,329 53,159 6.9 0.38 2.0 Female 5.6 4.6 6.6 909 41,154 7.3 0.50 2.1 Age 15-29 years 6.3 5.0 7.5 403 16,345 7.3 0.63 1.7 30+ years 6.1 5.3 6.9 1,835 77,968 7.0 0.40 2.4 Camels (kilogram of offtake per head of camel per producer) 13.2 10.4 16.0 779 26,811 31.4 1.41 1.2 Sex Male 12.9 9.1 16.8 487 15,611 30.3 1.94 1.4 Female 13.5 9.2 17.9 292 11,200 33.0 2.18 1.1 Age 15-29 years 9.0 4.1 13.8 111 3,587 24.9 2.40 1.0 30+ years 13.8 10.8 16.9 668 23,223 32.3 1.53 1.2 Cow milk (liters per milking cow per day per producer) 1.4 1.1 1.7 121 4,126 1.2 0.14 1.3 Sex Male 1.3 0.9 1.7 76 2,557 1.2 0.18 1.3 Female 1.6 1.2 2.1 45 1,569 1.2 0.21 1.2 Age 15-29 years NA NA NA 28 831 NA NA NA 30+ years 1.4 1.1 1.8 93 3,295 1.2 0.17 1.3 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 177 Lower Upper Table A1.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - Combined RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Camel milk (liters per milking camel per day per producer) 1.4 1.2 1.6 287 8,903 0.9 0.10 2.0 Sex Male 1.4 1.1 1.7 191 5,459 0.9 0.14 2.2 Female 1.4 1.2 1.6 96 3,445 0.9 0.11 1.2 Age 15-29 years 1.5 1.2 1.9 35 901 0.8 0.16 1.2 30+ years 1.4 1.2 1.6 252 8,003 0.9 0.11 1.9 WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 6.1 4.4 7.8 3,632 179,138 24.0 0.85 2.1 <19 years 5.3 3.0 7.6 764 32,911 24.0 1.18 1.4 19+ years 6.3 4.5 8.2 2,868 146,228 23.9 0.93 2.1 Percent of births receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 60.4 56.3 64.5 2,026 101,625 48.9 2.08 1.9 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 75.2 70.1 80.4 2,261 111,607 43.2 2.60 2.9 15-19 years 59.8 49.7 70.0 164 7,235 49.2 5.10 1.3 20-29 years 77.4 71.2 83.6 975 48,858 41.8 3.13 2.3 30-49 years 75.3 69.8 80.8 1,122 55,514 43.1 2.79 2.2 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methods in the past 12 months 77.6 72.3 82.9 500 25,198 41.7 2.67 1.4 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 13 486 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 13 486 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 13 486 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 73.7 65.9 81.5 258 13,598 44.1 3.94 1.4 Alone 33.7 27.9 39.4 258 13,598 47.4 2.89 1.0 Jointly 40.0 32.4 47.7 258 13,598 49.1 3.84 1.3 30-49 81.4 75.2 87.7 229 11,114 39.0 3.14 1.2 Alone 36.1 27.1 45.1 229 11,114 48.1 4.51 1.4 Jointly 45.3 35.2 55.5 229 11,114 49.9 5.10 1.5 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 25.0 20.8 29.2 1,941 95,320 43.3 2.12 2.2 Traditional 2.5 1.4 3.6 1,941 95,320 15.6 0.56 1.6 Modern 23.0 18.8 27.1 1,941 95,320 42.1 2.09 2.2 CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months 55.7 49.0 62.4 357 17,216 49.7 3.39 1.3 Male 53.8 44.6 62.9 173 8,239 49.5 4.64 1.2 Female 57.5 49.7 65.2 184 8,976 48.3 3.94 1.1 Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) 2.4 1.3 3.5 907 42,592 15.3 0.54 1.1 Male 2.4 0.9 3.9 476 22,610 15.2 0.76 1.1 Female 2.4 0.9 3.9 431 19,982 15.4 0.75 1.0 Percent of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 7.1 5.1 9.0 907 42,592 25.6 0.99 1.2 Male 7.1 4.6 9.6 476 22,610 25.6 1.26 1.1 Female 6.9 3.8 10.1 431 19,982 25.4 1.58 1.3 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 178 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - Combined RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Percent of children under five (0-59 months) who had diarrhea in the prior two weeks 23.5 20.6 26.4 3,398 158,417 42.4 1.47 2.0 Male 24.6 20.7 28.6 1,752 81,234 43.2 2.00 1.9 Female 22.3 19.2 25.3 1,646 77,182 41.5 1.54 1.5 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) with diarrhea treated with Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) 80.9 77.0 84.8 788 37,200 39.4 1.97 1.4 Male 82.5 77.9 87.0 413 20,007 37.5 2.30 1.2 Female 79.0 73.2 84.7 375 17,193 40.9 2.90 1.4 GENDER - CASH Percent of women and men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Female 25.2 20.8 29.6 2,719 128,158 43.4 2.22 2.7 15-19 years 12.3 5.3 19.4 173 7,390 34.9 3.58 1.4 20-29 years 23.5 18.6 28.4 1,013 48,595 42.1 2.49 1.9 30-49 years 30.3 24.9 35.7 1,156 54,737 46.3 2.74 2.0 ≥50 years 19.0 13.3 24.7 377 17,436 40.0 2.87 1.4 Male 42.5 36.3 48.7 2,628 128,429 49.4 3.15 3.3 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 23 959 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 56.8 47.7 65.9 381 21,526 45.7 4.60 2.0 30-49 years 48.2 41.9 54.5 1,371 65,717 50.1 3.20 2.4 ≥50 years 26.3 19.8 32.8 853 40,227 44.5 3.30 2.2 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self￾earned cash 82.0 77.1 86.9 477 30,270 38.5 2.46 1.4 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 14 860 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 82.5 75.2 89.9 165 10,899 32.3 3.71 1.5 30-49 years 81.4 75.3 87.5 252 15,634 34.7 3.10 1.4 ≥50 years 82.1 69.0 95.2 46 2,877 33.8 6.63 1.3 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner's self-earned cash 32.9 26.7 39.2 477 30,270 47.1 3.17 1.5 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 14 860 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 37.4 27.8 47.0 165 10,899 41.2 4.84 1.5 30-49 years 32.2 25.8 38.6 252 15,634 41.7 3.22 1.2 ≥50 years 20.6 7.5 33.8 46 2,877 35.6 6.65 1.3 Percent of men in union and earning cash who report spouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash 48.9 43.9 53.9 897 47,952 50.0 2.52 1.5 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 2 57 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 53.8 46.5 61.0 174 10,555 44.2 3.65 1.1 30-49 years 47.2 40.4 54.1 557 28,486 48.7 3.47 1.7 ≥50 years 48.8 36.4 61.3 164 8,853 47.4 6.30 1.7 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 179 Lower Upper Table A1.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - Combined RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT GENDER - CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men in a union who are members of a community group Female 38.4 33.6 43.1 2,611 118,767 48.6 2.40 2.5 15-19 years 36.8 24.5 49.1 166 6,714 51.6 6.2 1.6 20-29 years 39.9 34.5 45.4 970 45,244 48.5 2.74 1.8 30-49 years 38.7 33.4 43.9 1,116 50,878 49.0 2.66 1.8 ≥50 years 33.8 25.5 42.2 359 15,931 48.4 4.21 1.6 Male 32.4 27.9 36.9 2,390 112,739 46.8 2.28 2.4 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 20 784 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 38.0 28.6 47.4 345 18,513 45.0 4.74 2.0 30-49 years 32.8 27.9 37.7 1,262 58,898 46.9 2.47 1.9 ≥50 years 29.3 23.2 35.3 763 34,544 46.1 3.07 1.8 Percent of women/men in a union with access to credit Female 31.2 27.4 34.9 2,611 118,767 46.3 1.92 2.1 15-19 years 21.3 14.3 28.4 166 6,714 43.8 3.6 1.0 20-29 years 33.5 28.0 39.0 970 45,244 46.8 2.79 1.9 30-49 years 32.7 28.3 37.1 1,116 50,878 47.2 2.23 1.6 ≥50 years 23.7 18.0 29.4 359 15,931 43.5 2.88 1.3 Male 31.9 28.1 35.7 2,390 112,739 46.6 1.91 2.0 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 20 784 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 35.0 29.5 40.4 345 18,513 44.3 2.76 1.2 30-49 years 35.3 30.9 39.6 1,262 58,898 47.7 2.21 1.6 ≥50 years 25.0 20.6 29.3 763 34,544 43.8 2.19 1.4 Percent of women/men in a union who make decisions about credit Female 77.5 73.3 81.6 859 37,006 41.8 2.11 1.5 15-19 64.8 47.5 82.2 39 1,431 48.4 8.47 1.1 Alone 18.5 6.8 30.3 39 1,431 39.4 5.74 0.9 Jointly 46.3 25.0 67.7 39 1,431 50.5 10.42 1.3 20-29 78.2 72.0 84.4 336 15,162 41.4 3.15 1.4 Alone 34.5 29.1 39.8 336 15,162 47.6 2.70 1.0 Jointly 43.7 36.6 50.8 336 15,162 49.7 3.57 1.3 30-49 78.3 72.9 83.7 386 16,634 41.3 2.73 1.3 Alone 41.8 35.2 48.4 386 16,634 49.4 3.33 1.3 Jointly 36.5 29.6 43.5 386 16,634 48.2 3.49 1.4 ≥50 years 75.5 64.3 86.8 98 3,780 43.2 5.64 1.3 Alone 37.6 23.0 52.1 98 3,780 48.7 7.26 1.5 Jointly 38.0 24.0 51.9 98 3,780 48.8 6.98 1.4 Male 81.7 77.6 85.8 805 35,978 38.7 2.06 1.5 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 3 101 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 3 101 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 3 101 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 83.6 75.5 91.7 128 6,475 37.1 4.06 1.2 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 180 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - Combined RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Alone 43.4 30.0 56.8 128 6,475 49.8 6.73 1.5 Jointly 40.2 29.7 50.8 128 6,475 49.2 5.29 1.2 30-49 85.5 81.3 89.8 453 20,780 35.2 2.15 1.3 Alone 43.2 36.7 49.7 453 20,780 49.6 3.27 1.4 Jointly 42.3 35.9 48.8 453 20,780 49.5 3.26 1.4 ≥50 years 71.4 63.5 79.3 221 8,622 45.3 3.98 1.3 Alone 29.4 20.9 37.9 221 8,622 45.7 4.29 1.4 Jointly 42.0 32.6 51.4 221 8,622 49.5 4.71 1.4 RESILIENCE-RELATED Adaptive Capacity Index 33.2 31.0 35.4 3,875 174,257 15.4 1.12 4.5 Absorptive Capacity Index 33.9 32.2 35.5 3,876 174,308 15.6 0.84 3.4 Transformative Capacity Index 37.3 32.9 41.6 3,880 174,457 22.2 2.19 6.1 Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.7 3.7 3.8 3,427 155,339 1.3 0.05 2.1 Male and female adults 3.7 3.6 3.8 2,530 112,045 1.3 0.05 1.8 Adult female, no adult male 3.7 3.6 3.9 634 31,239 1.1 0.07 1.6 Adult male, no adult female 3.7 3.5 4.0 257 11,755 1.3 0.11 1.4 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 300 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs 5.6 4.1 7.1 3,880 174,457 23.0 0.78 2.1 Savings 3.9 2.6 5.2 3,880 174,457 19.4 0.65 2.1 Male and female adults 4.0 2.7 5.2 2,857 125,848 19.7 0.62 1.7 Adult female, no adult male 2.7 1.4 4.1 733 35,166 15.7 0.68 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 6.9 2.4 11.4 282 13,056 24.9 2.27 1.5 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 387 ^ ^ ^ Credit (including microfinance) 3.0 2.1 3.8 3,880 174,457 17.0 0.44 1.6 Male and female adults 3.3 2.2 4.3 2,857 125,848 18.0 0.53 1.6 Adult female, no adult male 1.7 0.6 2.8 733 35,166 12.5 0.54 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 3.4 1.2 5.7 282 13,056 18.0 1.14 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 387 ^ ^ ^ Index of social capital at the household level Overall index 67.0 64.8 69.2 3,881 174,473 24.7 1.11 2.8 Male and female adults 67.9 65.7 70.0 2,857 125,848 24.6 1.08 2.3 Adult female, no adult male 65.6 62.8 68.4 733 35,166 24.4 1.40 1.6 Adult male, no adult female 62.7 58.3 67.2 283 13,072 25.3 2.27 1.5 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 387 ^ ^ ^ Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 181 Lower Upper Table A1.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - Combined RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Bonding sub-index 67.5 65.3 69.8 3,881 174,473 26.0 1.13 2.7 Male and female adults 68.5 66.2 70.7 2,857 125,848 26.0 1.13 2.3 Adult female, no adult male 65.6 62.3 68.9 733 35,166 25.8 1.66 1.7 Adult male, no adult female 64.0 60.7 67.2 283 13,072 25.7 1.63 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 387 ^ ^ ^ Bridging sub-index 66.5 64.1 68.8 3,881 174,473 27.1 1.20 2.8 Male and female adults 67.3 65.0 69.6 2,857 125,848 26.8 1.15 2.3 Adult female, no adult male 65.6 62.9 68.2 733 35,166 26.5 1.34 1.4 Adult male, no adult female 61.5 54.7 68.3 283 13,072 30.3 3.44 1.9 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 8 387 ^ ^ ^ ^ Results not reported when n<30. NA : Not applicable. NOTES: 1 See list of improved post-harvest handling and storage practices promoted by the RFSAs. 2 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. 3 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 182 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the household, based the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) - 30 day recall 87.0 84.1 90.0 1,974 51,322 28.9 1.5 2.3 Male and female adults 86.9 83.7 90.0 1,550 40,994 28.6 1.57 2.2 Adult female, no adult male 90.8 87.6 93.9 305 7,730 24.5 1.57 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 78.3 61.7 94.8 118 2,577 41.0 8.28 2.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Level of severity Moderate 51.5 48.5 54.6 1,974 51,322 27.7 1.53 2.5 Severe 35.5 32.3 38.7 1,974 51,322 29.2 1.6 2.4 Percentage of households with poor food consumption score (FCS) 11.6 8.4 14.9 1,976 51,359 32.1 1.62 2.2 Male and female adults 10.9 7.8 14.0 1,552 41,032 30.9 1.55 2.0 Adult female, no adult male 16.5 8.8 24.2 305 7,730 37.6 3.86 1.8 Adult male, no adult female 9.6 2.8 16.3 118 2,577 32.1 3.39 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with borderline FCS 15.9 13.6 18.2 1,976 51,359 36.6 1.15 1.4 Male and female adults 15.8 13.4 18.1 1,552 41,032 36.1 1.19 1.3 Adult female, no adult male 16.0 11.5 20.5 305 7,730 37.2 2.25 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 17.1 8.4 25.8 118 2,577 41.1 4.36 1.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with adequate FCS 72.5 68.1 76.8 1,976 51,359 44.7 2.17 2.2 Male and female adults 73.4 68.9 77.8 1,552 41,032 43.8 2.23 2.0 Adult female, no adult male 67.5 59.6 75.4 305 7,730 47.4 3.97 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 73.3 62.1 84.5 118 2,577 48.3 5.61 1.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Mean FCS 53.5 51.2 55.8 1,976 51,359 19.8 1.15 2.6 Male and female adults 53.9 51.6 56.2 1,552 41,032 19.3 1.17 2.4 Adult female, no adult male 50.4 46.8 53.9 305 7,730 20.6 1.77 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 56.7 47.3 66.1 118 2,577 24.6 4.71 2.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ POVERTY INDICATORS Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy for income) in USG-assisted areas 2010 USD, PPP 2011 1.8 1.5 2.1 1,959 279,083 3.1 0.1 2.1 Male and female adults 1.8 1.4 2.1 1,542 243,592 3.1 0.16 2.1 Adult female, no adult male 1.6 1.4 1.8 300 30,872 2.1 0.11 0.9 Adult male, no adult female 2.7 2.1 3.4 116 4,578 4.4 0.33 0.8 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 40 ^ ^ ^ Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less thatn $1.90/day 2011 PPP 72.6 67.2 77.9 1,959 279,083 44.6 2.68 2.7 Male and female adults 73.4 67.8 79.0 1,542 243,592 41.9 2.79 2.6 Adult female, no adult male 70.5 64.0 77.1 300 30,872 53.7 3.27 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 42.2 26.0 58.5 116 4,578 93.9 8.13 0.9 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 40 ^ ^ ^ Table A1.2. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 183 Lower Upper Table A1.2. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percentage shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line 45.8 42.6 49.0 1,308 202,531 22.6 1.59 2.6 Male and female adults 46.2 42.8 49.5 1,087 178,783 21.1 1.69 2.6 Adult female, no adult male 43.4 39.4 47.4 190 21,775 23.6 1.98 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 40.7 29.1 52.4 30 1,934 34.5 5.83 0.9 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 40 ^ ^ ^ WASH INDICATORS Percent of households using basic drinking water services 4.7 2.3 7.2 1,953 50,909 21.2 1.2 2.5 On premise 1.6 0.9 2.4 1,953 50,909 12.7 0.4 1.3 ≤ 30-minute roundtrip 3.1 1.1 5.1 1,953 50,909 17.4 1.0 2.6 Gendered household type Male and female adults 4.0 1.7 6.3 1,544 40,819 19.6 1.1 2.3 Adult female, no adult male 5.7 1.6 9.9 301 7,624 23.3 2.1 1.6 Adult male, no adult female 14.3 6.8 21.8 107 2,446 35.2 3.7 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households in target areas practicing correct use of recommended household water treatment technologies 9.5 6.5 12.5 1,979 51,436 29.3 1.5 2.3 Chlorination 4.8 2.7 7.0 1,979 51,436 21.5 1.09 2.2 Flocculant/Disinfectant 0.9 0.3 1.5 1,979 51,436 9.7 0.30 1.4 Filtration 1.5 0.5 2.5 1,979 51,436 12.1 0.49 1.8 Solar Disinfection 0.2 0.0 0.7 1,979 51,436 5.0 0.21 1.8 Boiling 3.3 2.0 4.6 1,979 51,436 17.8 0.6 1.6 Percentage of households with access to a basic sanitation service 7.8 4.9 10.7 1,979 51,436 26.9 1.44 2.4 Male and female adults 8.5 5.1 12.0 1,554 41,093 27.7 1.73 2.5 Adult female, no adult male 5.3 2.3 8.3 305 7,730 22.7 1.48 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 4.3 0.6 7.9 119 2,593 22.1 1.83 0.9 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households in target areas practicing open defecation 57.1 48.3 66.0 1,979 51,436 49.5 4.42 4.0 Male and female adults 57.7 48.6 66.8 1,554 41,093 49.0 4.54 3.7 Adult female, no adult male 58.0 46.6 69.3 305 7,730 50.0 5.69 2.0 Adult male, no adult female 45.5 27.6 63.4 119 2,593 54.4 8.97 1.8 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises 33.6 16.4 50.7 163 4,282 47.4 8.45 2.3 Male and female adults 28.8 10.1 47.4 110 3,302 41.8 9.35 2.3 Adult female, no adult male ^ ^ ^ 24 614 ^ ^ ^ Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 29 366 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 184 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.2. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percent of farmers who used financial services (savings, agricultural credit and/or agricultural insurance) in the past 12 months 10.0 7.0 13.0 1,490 43,841 30.0 1.52 2.0 Male 10.3 7.5 13.0 984 28,191 30.8 1.37 1.4 Female 9.5 5.0 13.9 506 15,649 28.6 2.23 1.8 Percent of farmers who practiced the value chain interventions promoted by the activity in the past 12 months 20.1 12.6 27.5 441 13,779 40.1 3.72 2.0 Male 20.1 11.4 28.8 326 9,889 40.3 4.36 2.0 Female 20.0 11.0 29.0 115 3,890 37.2 4.52 1.3 Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies Greengrams NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sex Male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30+ years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved/certified seed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cultural practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Seedling production and transplantation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Kitchen gardens using sunken pits NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of natural barriers/cover crops NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Zaï pits (pot-holing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of minimum tillage practices NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting nitrogen-fixing trees NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of organic manure NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Soil testing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inoculant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 185 Lower Upper Table A1.2. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of rainwater harvesting technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drought early warning information/systems NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Aflatoxin prevention and control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of well-equipped food storage structures NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Temperature and humidity control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorghum NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sex Male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30+ years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved/certified seed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cultural practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Seedling production and transplantation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Kitchen gardens using sunken pits NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of natural barriers/cover crops NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Zaï pits (pot-holing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of minimum tillage practices NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting nitrogen-fixing trees NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 186 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.2. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Use of organic manure NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Soil testing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inoculant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of rainwater harvesting technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drought early warning information/systems NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Aflatoxin prevention and control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of well-equipped food storage structures NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Temperature and humidity control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Contract farming NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of training and extension services NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Selling products through community farmer associations NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved bulking NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorting and grading NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Other improved practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cattle (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 49.6 41.7 57.5 601 16,606 50.0 3.92 1.9 Sex Male 46.2 38.4 53.9 391 10,571 49.9 3.86 1.5 Female 55.7 44.6 66.8 210 6,035 49.8 5.48 1.6 Age 15-29 years 58.5 44.6 72.4 84 2,354 49.6 6.79 1.3 30+ years 48.2 39.8 56.5 517 14,252 50.0 4.14 1.9 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 1.3 0.5 2.2 601 16,606 11.4 0.42 0.9 Use of livestock health services and products 11.1 4.6 17.6 601 16,606 31.4 3.23 2.5 Use of improved shelters 3.9 1.9 5.9 601 16,606 19.4 0.99 1.3 Use of improved calving techniques 2.4 0.0 4.8 601 16,606 15.2 1.23 2.0 Use of improved milking techniques 0.4 0.0 1.0 601 16,606 6.5 0.30 1.1 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 2.5 0.3 4.7 601 16,606 15.6 1.10 1.7 Utilization of set grazing areas 32.8 25.9 39.6 601 16,606 47.0 3.40 1.8 Improved fodder production 1.3 0.4 2.2 601 16,606 11.4 0.44 0.9 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 187 Lower Upper Table A1.2. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Fencing off pasture plots 1.2 0.0 2.3 601 16,606 10.7 0.55 1.3 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 1.7 0.1 3.3 601 16,606 12.9 0.80 1.5 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 6.1 3.2 9.0 601 16,606 23.9 1.44 1.5 Use of water pans for livestock 4.3 2.0 6.7 601 16,606 20.4 1.17 1.4 Use of sand dams for livestock 3.2 1.3 5.2 601 16,606 17.7 0.97 1.3 Use of rock catchments for livestock 3.1 0.8 5.5 601 16,606 17.5 1.17 1.6 Goats (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 53.8 47.9 59.7 1,332 39,444 49.9 2.97 2.2 Sex Male 52.1 46.2 58.0 858 24,772 50.0 2.96 1.7 Female 56.6 48.5 64.8 474 14,673 49.6 4.08 1.8 Age 15-29 years 58.6 50.9 66.4 214 6,400 49.4 3.86 1.1 30+ years 52.9 46.9 58.9 1,118 33,044 49.9 3.01 2.0 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 1.5 0.3 2.6 1,332 39,444 12.0 0.56 1.7 Use of livestock health services and products 11.5 4.2 18.9 1,332 39,444 32.0 3.66 4.2 Use of improved shelters 5.2 2.4 8.0 1,332 39,444 22.2 1.39 2.3 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 NA NA 1,332 39,444 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of improved milking techniques 0.5 0.0 1.0 1,332 39,444 6.8 0.26 1.4 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 3.4 1.9 4.9 1,332 39,444 18.0 0.75 1.5 Utilization of set grazing areas 31.5 25.3 37.7 1,332 39,444 46.5 3.09 2.4 Improved fodder production 1.6 0.3 2.9 1,332 39,444 12.6 0.65 1.9 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots 2.3 0.9 3.7 1,332 39,444 14.9 0.70 1.7 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 1.9 0.6 3.1 1,332 39,444 13.5 0.63 1.7 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 6.3 3.6 9.1 1,332 39,444 24.4 1.39 2.1 Use of water pans for livestock 6.5 3.4 9.5 1,332 39,444 24.6 1.51 2.2 Use of sand dams for livestock 5.1 2.4 7.8 1,332 39,444 22.0 1.36 2.3 Use of rock catchments for livestock 2.4 0.9 3.9 1,332 39,444 15.3 0.77 1.8 Camels (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 54.0 46.0 62.1 669 21,048 49.9 3.98 2.1 Sex Male 50.8 43.6 57.9 441 13,426 50.1 3.53 1.5 Female 59.7 47.9 71.6 228 7,621 49.2 5.83 1.8 Age 15-29 years 61.1 48.1 74.0 88 2,761 49.0 6.31 1.2 30+ years 53.0 44.7 61.2 581 18,287 50.0 4.06 2.0 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 0.7 0.0 1.4 669 21,048 8.2 0.34 1.1 Use of livestock health services and products 8.4 1.9 14.9 669 21,048 27.8 3.24 3.0 Use of improved shelters 5.2 1.3 9.1 669 21,048 22.2 1.92 2.2 Use of improved calving techniques 0.2 0.0 0.7 669 21,048 5.0 0.24 1.3 Use of improved milking techniques 0.6 0.0 1.2 669 21,048 7.5 0.30 1.0 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 2.8 0.5 5.1 669 21,048 16.5 1.16 1.8 Utilization of set grazing areas 35.6 27.8 43.5 669 21,048 47.9 3.89 2.1 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 188 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.2. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Improved fodder production 0.8 0.0 1.9 669 21,048 8.9 0.54 1.6 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots 1.8 0.0 3.8 669 21,048 13.3 1.01 2.0 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 1.2 0.0 2.6 669 21,048 11.1 0.65 1.5 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 8.0 3.9 12.1 669 21,048 27.1 2.03 1.9 Use of water pans for livestock 6.5 2.0 11.0 669 21,048 24.7 2.21 2.3 Use of sand dams for livestock 3.5 0.5 6.5 669 21,048 18.3 1.49 2.1 Use of rock catchments for livestock 2.8 0.8 4.7 669 21,048 16.4 0.98 1.5 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within targeted areas - livestock Cattle (kilogram of offtake per head of cattle per producer) 14.8 11.7 17.9 564 15,074 22.3 1.54 1.6 Sex Male 15.7 11.9 19.5 367 9,624 23.1 1.89 1.6 Female 13.2 9.3 17.1 197 5,450 20.8 1.94 1.3 Age 15-29 years 14.6 8.1 21.1 80 2,163 24.2 3.19 1.2 30+ years 14.9 11.4 18.3 484 12,911 22.0 1.73 1.7 Goats (kilogram of offtake per head of goat per producer) 7.9 7.2 8.7 1,304 35,479 7.1 0.38 1.9 Sex Male 8.2 7.4 9.0 840 22,337 6.9 0.40 1.7 Female 7.5 6.3 8.7 464 13,142 7.4 0.59 1.7 Age 15-29 years 7.2 6.2 8.3 208 5,677 7.3 0.54 1.1 30+ years 8.0 7.3 8.8 1,096 29,802 7.1 0.39 1.8 Camels (kilogram of offtake per head of camel per producer) 14.6 11.5 17.8 644 18,430 31.4 1.56 1.3 Sex Male 14.3 10.5 18.1 423 11,678 30.1 1.90 1.3 Female 15.1 11.4 18.9 221 6,752 33.5 1.85 0.8 Age 15-29 years 12.9 6.5 19.4 85 2,436 29.3 3.15 1.0 30+ years 14.9 11.4 18.3 559 15,994 31.7 1.72 1.3 Cow milk (liters per milking cow per day per producer) 1.0 0.8 1.2 68 1,912 0.9 0.10 0.9 Sex Male 0.9 0.6 1.3 49 1,375 0.9 0.16 1.2 Female ^ ^ ^ 19 537 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 15 338 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 0.9 0.7 1.1 53 1,574 0.8 0.09 0.9 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 189 Lower Upper Table A1.2. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Camel milk (liters per milking camel per day per producer) 1.2 1.0 1.5 250 6,639 0.8 0.11 2.1 Sex Male 1.2 0.9 1.5 172 4,439 0.8 0.13 2.2 Female 1.3 1.1 1.4 78 2,201 0.8 0.07 0.8 Age 15-29 years 1.4 1.1 1.8 31 775 0.7 0.16 1.2 30+ years 1.2 1.0 1.4 219 5,864 0.8 0.11 2.0 WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 7.4 4.9 9.9 1,965 56,548 26.3 1.25 2.1 <19 years 7.0 3.8 10.2 468 12,478 26.6 1.60 1.3 19+ years 7.6 4.7 10.4 1,497 44,070 26.2 1.42 2.1 Percent of births receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 62.8 57.7 67.9 1,073 31,393 48.4 2.54 1.7 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 75.8 69.9 81.7 1,209 35,395 42.9 2.94 2.4 15-19 years 58.2 46.3 70.0 93 2,525 49.6 5.87 1.1 20-29 years 74.7 67.9 81.4 483 13,982 43.5 3.37 1.7 30-49 years 78.9 72.7 85.2 633 18,888 40.8 3.12 1.9 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methods in the past 12 months 83.9 76.9 90.9 223 6,274 36.8 3.47 1.4 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 8 213 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 8 213 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 8 213 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 81.9 72.9 91.0 111 2,956 38.7 4.48 1.2 Alone 12.4 5.8 18.9 111 2,956 33.1 3.27 1.0 Jointly 69.6 59.9 79.2 111 2,956 46.2 4.80 1.1 30-49 84.7 75.8 93.6 104 3,105 36.2 4.40 1.2 Alone 24.3 11.5 37.2 104 3,105 43.1 6.35 1.5 Jointly 60.3 44.2 76.4 104 3,105 49.2 7.97 1.7 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 21.8 17.3 26.3 1,046 30,451 41.3 2.25 1.8 Traditional 4.7 2.1 7.2 1,046 30,451 21.1 1.29 2.0 Modern 17.8 13.6 22.0 1,046 30,451 38.2 2.10 1.8 CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months 52.0 41.8 62.2 160 4,156 50.1 5.10 1.3 Male 48.9 37.4 60.4 88 2,265 51.2 5.77 1.1 Female 55.7 40.2 71.2 72 1,891 50.3 7.77 1.3 Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) 3.5 1.4 5.5 477 12,884 18.3 1.04 1.2 Male 3.3 0.9 5.7 251 6,838 17.9 1.18 1.1 Female 3.6 0.3 7.0 226 6,046 18.7 1.68 1.3 Percent of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 7.8 4.4 11.3 477 12,884 26.9 1.71 1.4 Male 8.1 4.3 11.9 251 6,838 27.2 1.89 1.1 Female 7.5 2.6 12.5 226 6,046 26.5 2.47 1.4 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 190 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.2. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Percent of children under five (0-59 months) who had diarrhea in the prior two weeks 20.1 15.6 24.6 1,735 46,848 40.1 2.26 2.4 Male 19.9 14.9 24.9 914 24,598 40.0 2.50 1.9 Female 20.2 15.1 25.4 821 22,249 40.1 2.59 1.8 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) with diarrhea treated with Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) 85.9 81.7 90.1 368 9,408 34.8 2.10 1.2 Male 86.6 80.2 93.0 192 4,905 34.9 3.21 1.3 Female 85.2 79.1 91.3 176 4,503 36.3 3.04 1.1 GENDER - CASH Percent of women and men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Female 9.5 6.7 12.3 1,468 42,760 29.3 1.41 1.8 15-19 years 3.7 0.0 7.9 99 2,636 19.7 2.11 1.1 20-29 years 6.5 3.8 9.2 502 14,503 24.7 1.37 1.2 30-49 years 13.6 9.1 18.2 652 19,488 33.6 2.29 1.7 ≥50 years 6.0 2.6 9.3 215 6,133 23.8 1.67 1.0 Male 30.7 25.2 36.2 1,443 41,011 46.1 2.78 2.3 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 10 295 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 40.3 29.0 51.6 162 4,079 52.4 5.68 1.4 30-49 years 37.6 30.7 44.6 760 22,094 47.9 3.49 2.0 ≥50 years 17.8 13.6 22.1 511 14,543 38.5 2.11 1.2 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self￾earned cash 85.8 79.2 92.5 127 3,674 35.0 3.29 1.1 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 3 ^ ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 78.9 65.1 92.6 34 891 42.9 6.89 0.9 30-49 years 88.4 81.0 95.8 80 2,424 30.9 3.70 1.1 ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 10 262 ^ ^ ^ Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner's self-earned cash 45.0 33.6 56.4 127 3,674 49.9 5.65 1.3 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 3 98 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 46.4 27.3 65.5 34 891 52.4 9.57 1.1 30-49 years 48.2 34.8 61.5 80 2,424 48.3 6.69 1.2 ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 10 262 ^ ^ ^ Percent of men in union and earning cash who report spouse/partner participation in decisions about the use 54.5 48.0 61.0 412 11,722 49.9 3.22 1.3 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 1 38 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 58.0 43.6 72.4 58 1,489 52.4 7.20 1.0 30-49 years 52.7 44.6 60.8 265 7,772 49.1 4.05 1.3 ≥50 years 59.0 45.6 72.4 88 2,423 50.3 6.72 1.3 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 191 Lower Upper Table A1.2. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT GENDER - CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men in a union who are members of a community group Female 33.7 29.0 38.5 1,423 38,808 47.3 2.39 1.9 15-19 years 28.0 16.6 39.3 96 2,405 47.3 5.7 1.2 20-29 years 33.8 27.8 39.7 486 13,176 48.1 2.99 1.4 30-49 years 35.3 29.0 41.7 636 17,768 47.4 3.19 1.7 ≥50 years 30.9 23.6 38.2 205 5,459 47.1 3.65 1.1 Male 28.2 23.6 32.8 1,333 37,897 45.0 2.28 1.9 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 10 300 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 27.2 16.7 37.7 148 3,721 47.0 5.25 1.4 30-49 years 28.2 22.4 33.9 707 20,543 44.0 2.89 1.7 ≥50 years 28.6 23.1 34.1 468 13,332 44.8 2.76 1.3 Percent of women/men in a union with access to credit Female 36.4 31.4 41.4 1,423 38,808 48.1 2.50 2.0 15-19 years 22.4 13.7 31.1 96 2,405 43.9 4.4 1.0 20-29 years 38.6 31.5 45.8 486 13,176 49.5 3.59 1.6 30-49 years 37.5 31.9 43.2 636 17,768 48.0 2.82 1.5 ≥50 years 33.2 26.2 40.2 205 5,459 48.0 3.52 1.0 Male 35.4 30.4 40.4 1,333 37,897 47.8 2.50 1.9 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 10 300 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 37.4 29.3 45.6 148 3,721 51.1 4.09 1.0 30-49 years 36.4 29.5 43.2 707 20,543 47.1 3.44 1.9 ≥50 years 33.6 28.1 39.0 468 13,332 46.8 2.74 1.3 Percent of women/men in a union who make decisions about credit Female 75.6 69.1 82.1 501 14,110 43.0 3.24 1.7 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 21 538 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 21 538 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 21 538 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 77.6 69.8 85.3 183 5,089 41.8 3.88 1.3 Alone 30.6 21.1 40.0 183 5,089 46.2 4.71 1.4 Jointly 47.0 35.0 59.0 183 5,089 50.0 6.01 1.6 30-49 75.8 67.4 84.3 230 6,669 42.9 4.23 1.5 Alone 34.1 24.8 43.5 230 6,669 47.5 4.67 1.5 Jointly 41.7 29.6 53.8 230 6,669 49.4 6.05 1.9 ≥50 years 74.3 61.6 87.0 67 1,813 44.0 6.27 1.2 Alone 34.2 21.2 47.2 67 1,813 47.8 6.42 1.1 Jointly 40.1 28.9 51.3 67 1,813 49.4 5.55 0.9 Male 74.9 67.8 82.1 463 13,420 43.4 3.57 1.8 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 2 81 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 2 81 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 2 81 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 74.9 59.5 90.3 57 1,394 43.8 7.58 1.3 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 192 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.2. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Alone 40.1 25.3 54.9 57 1,394 49.4 7.28 1.1 Jointly 34.8 21.5 48.1 57 1,394 48.1 6.55 1.0 30-49 80.1 73.8 86.5 251 7,470 40.0 3.18 1.3 Alone 33.6 26.5 40.8 251 7,470 47.3 3.59 1.2 Jointly 46.5 37.2 55.8 251 7,470 50.0 4.64 1.5 ≥50 years 66.8 56.7 76.9 153 4,476 47.2 5.05 1.3 Alone 22.1 14.6 29.6 153 4,476 41.6 3.75 1.1 Jointly 44.7 33.4 56.0 153 4,476 49.9 5.65 1.4 RESILIENCE-RELATED Adaptive Capacity Index 34.1 31.6 36.6 1,973 51,312 13.9 1.26 4.0 Absorptive Capacity Index 37.8 35.4 40.1 1,973 51,312 15.2 1.16 3.4 Transformative Capacity Index 39.0 33.3 44.7 1,974 51,334 23.2 2.86 5.5 Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.6 3.5 3.7 1,734 45,151 1.4 0.07 2.0 Male and female adults 3.6 3.4 3.7 1,362 35,914 1.3 0.07 2.0 Adult female, no adult male 3.6 3.4 3.8 260 6,766 1.3 0.10 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 3.8 3.5 4.1 111 2,451 1.4 0.17 1.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs 4.3 2.4 6.3 1,974 51,334 20.3 0.98 2.1 Savings 3.0 1.3 4.8 1,974 51,334 17.2 0.88 2.3 Male and female adults 2.8 1.2 4.5 1,550 41,006 16.5 0.85 2.0 Adult female, no adult male 4.3 1.0 7.5 305 7,730 20.5 1.62 1.4 Adult male, no adult female 2.4 0.0 6.8 118 2,577 16.7 2.22 1.4 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Credit (including microfinance) 2.2 1.1 3.3 1,974 51,334 14.6 0.56 1.7 Male and female adults 2.1 1.0 3.2 1,550 41,006 14.3 0.56 1.5 Adult female, no adult male 2.4 0.3 4.6 305 7,730 15.6 1.08 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 2.3 0.0 5.4 118 2,577 16.3 1.58 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Index of social capital at the household level Overall index 69.0 67.0 71.1 1,975 51,350 23.6 1.02 1.9 Male and female adults 69.1 67.0 71.3 1,550 41,006 23.2 1.07 1.8 Adult female, no adult male 68.6 65.6 71.7 305 7,730 24.3 1.51 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 68.4 63.6 73.2 119 2,593 27.3 2.40 1.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 193 Lower Upper Table A1.2. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Bonding sub-index 70.1 67.9 72.3 1,975 51,350 24.7 1.10 2.0 Male and female adults 70.3 68.0 72.6 1,550 41,006 24.3 1.14 1.8 Adult female, no adult male 70.1 66.9 73.4 305 7,730 25.1 1.62 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 66.6 61.7 71.5 119 2,593 29.2 2.47 0.9 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Bridging sub-index 68.0 65.9 70.1 1,975 51,350 25.5 1.04 1.8 Male and female adults 68.0 65.8 70.2 1,550 41,006 25.1 1.11 1.7 Adult female, no adult male 67.1 64.0 70.3 305 7,730 26.2 1.60 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 70.1 64.5 75.7 119 2,593 29.5 2.81 1.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ ^ Results not reported when n<30. NA : Not applicable. NOTES: 1 See list of improved post-harvest handling and storage practices promoted by the RFSAs. 2 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. 3 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 194 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the household, based the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) - 30 day recall 90.4 87.5 93.4 979 26,455 25.1 1.4 1.8 Male and female adults 89.7 86.5 93.0 792 21,460 25.9 1.59 1.7 Adult female, no adult male 95.0 92.1 97.9 154 4,133 17.8 1.43 1.0 Adult male, no adult female 85.7 74.7 96.7 32 843 31.0 5.41 1.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Level of severity Moderate 43.6 41.0 46.3 979 26,455 24.9 1.29 1.6 Severe 46.8 42.2 51.3 979 26,455 29.7 2.2 2.3 Percentage of households with poor food consumption score (FCS) 18.3 12.2 24.4 981 26,493 38.7 3.00 2.4 Male and female adults 16.9 11.3 22.5 794 21,498 37.5 2.75 2.1 Adult female, no adult male 25.5 12.3 38.8 154 4,133 43.8 6.52 1.8 Adult male, no adult female 17.9 2.4 33.3 32 843 38.8 7.61 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with borderline FCS 19.6 16.2 23.0 981 26,493 39.7 1.66 1.3 Male and female adults 19.7 16.4 23.0 794 21,498 39.8 1.62 1.1 Adult female, no adult male 19.7 12.2 27.3 154 4,133 39.9 3.72 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 14.2 0.8 27.6 32 843 35.3 6.58 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with adequate FCS 62.1 54.6 69.5 981 26,493 48.5 3.66 2.4 Male and female adults 63.3 56.2 70.4 794 21,498 48.2 3.49 2.0 Adult female, no adult male 54.7 40.9 68.6 154 4,133 49.9 6.80 1.7 Adult male, no adult female 68.0 47.9 88.0 32 843 47.3 9.83 1.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Mean FCS 47.5 43.8 51.1 981 26,493 19.5 1.81 2.9 Male and female adults 48.2 44.7 51.7 794 21,498 19.4 1.73 2.5 Adult female, no adult male 43.5 37.5 49.4 154 4,133 19.5 2.92 1.9 Adult male, no adult female 48.5 39.2 57.9 32 843 19.4 4.60 1.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ POVERTY INDICATORS Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy for income) in USG-assisted areas 2010 USD, PPP 2011 1.6 1.1 2.1 972 144,070 3.1 0.2 2.4 Male and female adults 1.6 1.1 2.2 788 124,893 3.1 0.26 2.3 Adult female, no adult male 1.4 1.2 1.6 151 16,969 1.8 0.11 0.8 Adult male, no adult female 2.1 1.4 2.8 32 2,168 1.9 0.34 1.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 40 ^ ^ ^ Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less thatn $1.90/day 2011 PPP 77.3 69.0 85.7 972 144,070 41.9 4.09 3.0 Male and female adults 77.7 69.0 86.5 788 124,893 40.2 4.30 3.0 Adult female, no adult male 78.3 70.8 85.8 151 16,969 47.4 3.69 1.0 Adult male, no adult female 47.4 21.0 73.9 32 2,168 73.8 13.00 1.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 40 ^ ^ ^ Table A1.3. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MARSABIT Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 195 Lower Upper Table A1.3. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MARSABIT Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percentage shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line 50.7 45.8 55.7 716 111,411 22.8 2.45 2.9 Male and female adults 51.2 46.1 56.4 591 97,060 21.9 2.55 2.8 Adult female, no adult male 47.8 42.0 53.6 112 13,283 23.2 2.85 1.3 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 12 1,028 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 40 ^ ^ ^ WASH INDICATORS Percent of households using basic drinking water services 5.0 0.6 9.3 981 26,500 21.7 2.1 3.1 On premise 0.5 0.0 1.1 981 26,500 6.7 0.3 1.4 ≤ 30-minute roundtrip 4.5 0.7 8.3 981 26,500 20.8 1.9 2.8 Gendered household type Male and female adults 4.3 0.4 8.2 794 21,505 20.4 1.9 2.7 Adult female, no adult male 5.8 0.0 12.0 154 4,133 23.5 3.0 1.6 Adult male, no adult female 16.9 0.0 35.3 32 843 38.0 8.9 1.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households in target areas practicing correct use of recommended household water treatment technologies 12.7 7.8 17.7 983 26,534 33.3 2.4 2.3 Chlorination 6.2 3.1 9.3 983 26,534 24.1 1.52 2.0 Flocculant/Disinfectant 1.4 0.3 2.5 983 26,534 11.8 0.54 1.4 Filtration 2.9 0.9 4.9 983 26,534 16.8 0.98 1.8 Solar Disinfection 0.5 0.0 1.3 983 26,534 6.9 0.40 1.8 Boiling 4.1 2.0 6.1 983 26,534 19.7 1.0 1.6 Percentage of households with access to a basic sanitation service 4.3 1.6 7.1 983 26,534 20.4 1.35 2.1 Male and female adults 4.7 1.5 7.9 796 21,538 21.2 1.57 2.1 Adult female, no adult male 3.3 0.0 7.0 154 4,133 17.9 1.84 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 0.0 NA NA 32 843 NA NA NA Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ Percent of households in target areas practicing open defecation 79.3 66.9 91.7 983 26,534 40.5 6.11 4.7 Male and female adults 80.1 68.2 92.0 796 21,538 39.9 5.87 4.1 Adult female, no adult male 74.7 58.1 91.4 154 4,133 43.6 8.19 2.3 Adult male, no adult female 80.1 61.9 98.4 32 843 40.4 8.96 1.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises 57.4 33.5 81.3 61 1,752 49.9 11.23 1.8 Male and female adults 59.2 34.3 84.1 43 1,274 47.2 12.24 1.7 Adult female, no adult male ^ ^ ^ 15 415 ^ ^ ^ Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 3 63 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 196 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.3. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MARSABIT Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percent of farmers who used financial services (savings, agricultural credit and/or agricultural insurance) in the past 12 months 6.0 3.7 8.3 976 30,041 23.7 1.12 1.5 Male 6.6 3.9 9.4 608 18,052 25.4 1.35 1.3 Female 5.0 2.8 7.2 368 11,989 21.2 1.10 1.0 Percent of farmers who practiced the value chain interventions promoted by the activity in the past 12 months 20.4 10.6 30.1 301 9,582 40.3 4.77 2.1 Male 21.1 10.0 32.3 219 6,766 41.6 5.47 1.9 Female 18.5 7.2 29.9 82 2,816 36.5 5.57 1.4 Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies Greengrams NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sex Male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30+ years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved/certified seed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cultural practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Seedling production and transplantation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Kitchen gardens using sunken pits NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of natural barriers/cover crops NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Zaï pits (pot-holing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of minimum tillage practices NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting nitrogen-fixing trees NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of organic manure NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Soil testing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inoculant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 197 Lower Upper Table A1.3. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MARSABIT Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of rainwater harvesting technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drought early warning information/systems NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Aflatoxin prevention and control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of well-equipped food storage structures NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Temperature and humidity control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorghum NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sex Male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30+ years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved/certified seed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cultural practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Seedling production and transplantation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Kitchen gardens using sunken pits NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of natural barriers/cover crops NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Zaï pits (pot-holing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of minimum tillage practices NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting nitrogen-fixing trees NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 198 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.3. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MARSABIT Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Use of organic manure NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Soil testing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inoculant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of rainwater harvesting technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drought early warning information/systems NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Aflatoxin prevention and control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of well-equipped food storage structures NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Temperature and humidity control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Contract farming NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of training and extension services NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Selling products through community farmer associations NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved bulking NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorting and grading NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Other improved practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cattle (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 61.0 53.6 68.3 382 11,090 48.8 3.59 1.4 Sex Male 58.2 50.4 66.0 235 6,520 49.4 3.82 1.2 Female 65.0 54.7 75.2 147 4,571 47.9 4.98 1.3 Age 15-29 years 70.5 53.7 87.3 63 1,922 46.0 8.06 1.4 30+ years 59.0 50.5 67.4 319 9,169 49.3 4.13 1.5 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 1.9 0.7 3.1 382 11,090 13.6 0.58 0.8 Use of livestock health services and products 12.4 3.7 21.1 382 11,090 33.0 4.26 2.5 Use of improved shelters 5.9 3.2 8.6 382 11,090 23.5 1.32 1.1 Use of improved calving techniques 3.5 0.0 7.1 382 11,090 18.5 1.75 1.9 Use of improved milking techniques 0.6 0.0 1.6 382 11,090 7.9 0.45 1.1 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 3.2 0.1 6.3 382 11,090 17.7 1.51 1.7 Utilization of set grazing areas 41.3 33.1 49.4 382 11,090 49.3 3.98 1.6 Improved fodder production 1.3 0.3 2.4 382 11,090 11.4 0.52 0.9 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 199 Lower Upper Table A1.3. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MARSABIT Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Fencing off pasture plots 1.7 0.1 3.4 382 11,090 13.1 0.81 1.2 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 2.1 0.0 4.4 382 11,090 14.5 1.10 1.5 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 9.1 4.9 13.4 382 11,090 28.8 2.08 1.4 Use of water pans for livestock 6.2 2.6 9.8 382 11,090 24.2 1.75 1.4 Use of sand dams for livestock 3.3 0.6 6.0 382 11,090 17.8 1.33 1.5 Use of rock catchments for livestock 4.7 1.1 8.3 382 11,090 21.2 1.77 1.6 Goats (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 61.6 54.4 68.7 915 28,429 48.7 3.53 2.2 Sex Male 60.3 53.1 67.5 564 16,907 49.0 3.55 1.7 Female 63.4 54.3 72.6 351 11,522 48.2 4.50 1.7 Age 15-29 years 69.1 58.7 79.5 154 4,816 46.4 5.08 1.4 30+ years 60.0 53.0 67.1 761 23,613 49.0 3.46 1.9 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 1.9 0.3 3.5 915 28,429 13.7 0.78 1.7 Use of livestock health services and products 9.8 2.7 16.9 915 28,429 29.7 3.48 3.5 Use of improved shelters 6.6 2.7 10.5 915 28,429 24.8 1.92 2.3 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 NA NA 915 28,429 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of improved milking techniques 0.7 0.0 1.4 915 28,429 8.1 0.36 1.3 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 4.0 2.1 5.8 915 28,429 19.5 0.92 1.4 Utilization of set grazing areas 38.9 30.5 47.2 915 28,429 48.8 4.09 2.5 Improved fodder production 1.6 0.0 3.3 915 28,429 12.4 0.83 2.0 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots 2.8 0.9 4.8 915 28,429 16.6 0.95 1.7 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 2.3 0.6 4.1 915 28,429 15.1 0.85 1.7 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 8.6 4.8 12.4 915 28,429 28.1 1.85 2.0 Use of water pans for livestock 7.1 3.1 11.1 915 28,429 25.7 1.96 2.3 Use of sand dams for livestock 4.2 0.9 7.4 915 28,429 20.0 1.59 2.4 Use of rock catchments for livestock 3.3 1.1 5.5 915 28,429 17.9 1.08 1.8 Camels (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 56.5 48.0 65.1 610 19,742 49.6 4.21 2.1 Sex Male 53.4 45.6 61.1 400 12,537 49.9 3.81 1.5 Female 62.0 49.8 74.3 210 7,206 48.6 6.00 1.8 Age 15-29 years 64.9 51.3 78.6 80 2,596 48.0 6.61 1.2 30+ years 55.3 46.5 64.0 530 17,146 49.8 4.29 2.0 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 0.7 0.0 1.5 610 19,742 8.5 0.36 1.1 Use of livestock health services and products 8.5 1.6 15.5 610 19,742 28.0 3.42 3.0 Use of improved shelters 5.5 1.4 9.7 610 19,742 22.9 2.05 2.2 Use of improved calving techniques 0.3 0.0 0.8 610 19,742 5.2 0.26 1.2 Use of improved milking techniques 0.6 0.0 1.2 610 19,742 7.7 0.32 1.0 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 3.0 0.5 5.5 610 19,742 17.0 1.24 1.8 Utilization of set grazing areas 37.0 28.7 45.4 610 19,742 48.3 4.08 2.1 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 200 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.3. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MARSABIT Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Improved fodder production 0.7 0.0 1.9 610 19,742 8.6 0.57 1.6 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots 1.9 0.0 4.1 610 19,742 13.7 1.08 1.9 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 1.3 0.0 2.8 610 19,742 11.5 0.70 1.5 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 8.5 4.1 12.9 610 19,742 27.9 2.16 1.9 Use of water pans for livestock 6.9 2.1 11.8 610 19,742 25.4 2.37 2.3 Use of sand dams for livestock 3.7 0.4 7.0 610 19,742 18.9 1.60 2.1 Use of rock catchments for livestock 2.9 0.8 5.1 610 19,742 16.9 1.05 1.5 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within targeted areas - livestock Cattle (kilogram of offtake per head of cattle per producer) 15.3 11.1 19.5 351 9,845 22.8 2.06 1.7 Sex Male 16.8 11.2 22.4 215 5,754 24.3 2.75 1.7 Female 13.2 8.2 18.1 136 4,091 20.4 2.39 1.4 Age 15-29 years 14.9 7.0 22.9 60 1,756 23.7 3.78 1.2 30+ years 15.4 10.6 20.2 291 8,089 22.6 2.36 1.8 Goats (kilogram of offtake per head of goat per producer) 7.7 6.8 8.7 897 25,115 7.3 0.47 1.9 Sex Male 8.3 7.2 9.3 554 14,977 7.2 0.51 1.7 Female 6.9 5.5 8.4 343 10,138 7.5 0.71 1.7 Age 15-29 years 7.6 6.4 8.9 150 4,230 7.5 0.61 1.0 30+ years 7.7 6.8 8.7 747 20,885 7.3 0.49 1.8 Camels (kilogram of offtake per head of camel per producer) 15.3 12.0 18.7 587 17,204 32.1 1.62 1.2 Sex Male 15.1 11.0 19.1 383 10,834 30.8 1.99 1.3 Female 15.8 11.9 19.7 204 6,370 34.3 1.90 0.8 Age 15-29 years 13.7 6.9 20.5 78 2,297 30.0 3.29 1.0 30+ years 15.6 11.9 19.3 509 14,907 32.4 1.81 1.3 Cow milk (liters per milking cow per day per producer) 1.0 0.7 1.3 48 1,335 0.9 0.12 0.9 Sex Male 1.0 0.4 1.6 31 848 1.0 0.25 1.5 Female ^ ^ ^ 17 487 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 13 303 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 1.0 0.7 1.2 35 1,032 0.8 0.11 0.8 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 201 Lower Upper Table A1.3. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MARSABIT Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Camel milk (liters per milking camel per day per producer) 1.2 1.0 1.4 216 5,955 0.8 0.11 2.1 Sex Male 1.2 0.9 1.5 149 3,947 0.8 0.14 2.2 Female 1.2 1.1 1.4 67 2,007 0.8 0.08 0.7 Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 26 679 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 1.2 0.9 1.4 190 5,276 0.8 0.12 2.0 WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 2.6 0.8 4.5 930 28,612 16.0 0.90 1.7 <19 years 3.2 0.0 7.2 197 5,548 18.3 2.00 1.5 19+ years 2.5 0.9 4.1 733 23,065 15.5 0.77 1.3 Percent of births receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 56.2 48.5 63.9 553 17,095 49.7 3.78 1.8 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 63.7 54.4 72.9 628 19,368 48.1 4.55 2.4 15-19 years 46.7 30.5 63.0 59 1,615 50.3 7.94 1.2 20-29 years 62.0 51.2 72.7 245 7,562 48.6 5.28 1.7 30-49 years 67.7 58.1 77.2 324 10,191 46.8 4.69 1.8 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methods in the past 12 months 80.3 65.0 95.7 61 1,698 40.1 7.36 1.4 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 4 105 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 4 105 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 4 105 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 75.9 54.3 97.4 34 891 43.4 10.22 1.4 Alone 18.7 1.3 36.2 34 891 39.6 8.28 1.2 Jointly 57.1 32.0 82.3 34 891 50.2 11.93 1.4 30-49 ^ ^ ^ 23 702 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 23 702 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 23 702 ^ ^ ^ Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 14.7 8.8 20.5 539 16,551 35.4 2.88 1.9 Traditional 6.5 2.1 11.0 539 16,551 24.8 2.21 2.1 Modern 9.1 4.4 13.8 539 16,551 28.8 2.32 1.9 CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months 46.8 31.5 62.1 75 2,102 50.2 7.47 1.3 Male 45.3 27.3 63.4 42 1,206 49.4 8.88 1.2 Female 48.7 27.6 69.9 33 896 50.2 10.40 1.2 Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) 1.3 0.0 2.9 255 6,970 11.3 0.81 1.1 Male 1.2 0.0 2.9 143 3,850 10.9 0.86 0.9 Female 1.5 0.0 4.4 112 3,120 11.9 1.45 1.3 Percent of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 5.0 2.2 7.8 255 6,970 21.8 1.37 1.0 Male 5.2 1.3 9.1 143 3,850 22.6 1.92 1.0 Female 4.7 0.5 8.9 112 3,120 21.1 2.06 1.0 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) who had diarrhea in the prior two weeks 24.7 17.3 32.2 911 25,257 43.2 3.66 2.6 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 202 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.3. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MARSABIT Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Male 24.6 16.8 32.3 488 13,368 43.3 3.81 1.9 Female 24.9 16.2 33.6 423 11,890 43.0 4.29 2.1 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) with diarrhea treated with Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) 87.8 83.1 92.6 249 6,245 32.8 2.31 1.1 Male 87.9 80.4 95.4 130 3,283 34.0 3.69 1.2 Female 87.7 81.1 94.4 119 2,962 34.1 3.27 1.0 GENDER - CASH Percent of women and men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Female 6.9 3.4 10.3 764 22,390 25.3 1.70 1.9 15-19 years 6.0 0.0 12.9 63 1,634 25.3 3.40 1.1 20-29 years 6.1 2.2 10.0 261 7,630 24.1 1.93 1.3 30-49 years 8.2 3.6 12.9 332 10,026 27.1 2.26 1.5 ≥50 years 4.9 0.6 9.1 108 3,099 21.8 2.10 1.0 Male 20.6 13.6 27.7 745 22,190 40.5 3.45 2.3 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 8 241 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 31.8 11.2 52.3 62 1,614 49.7 10.10 1.6 30-49 years 26.0 17.7 34.2 398 12,135 43.1 4.06 1.9 ≥50 years 11.2 5.9 16.4 277 8,201 31.5 2.57 1.4 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self￾earned cash 85.6 74.7 96.6 53 1,385 35.4 5.23 1.1 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 3 98 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years ^ ^ ^ 19 464 ^ ^ ^ 30-49 years ^ ^ ^ 26 703 ^ ^ ^ ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 5 119 ^ ^ ^ Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner's self-earned cash 37.9 19.5 56.2 53 1,385 49.0 8.78 1.3 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 3 98 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years ^ ^ ^ 19 464 ^ ^ ^ 30-49 years ^ ^ ^ 26 703 ^ ^ ^ ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 5 119 ^ ^ ^ Percent of men in union and earning cash who report spouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash 45.5 35.3 55.8 144 4,099 50.0 4.97 1.2 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years ^ ^ ^ 18 451 ^ ^ ^ 30-49 years 45.0 33.4 56.5 95 2,789 49.3 5.68 1.1 ≥50 years 45.5 21.4 69.6 31 859 51.4 11.85 1.3 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 203 Lower Upper Table A1.3. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MARSABIT Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT GENDER - CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men in a union who are members of a community group Female 32.5 25.7 39.4 731 20,606 46.9 3.36 1.9 15-19 years 29.2 12.9 45.6 60 1,496 49.4 8.0 1.3 20-29 years 28.5 19.9 37.1 249 7,048 46.1 4.23 1.4 30-49 years 34.6 26.1 43.1 321 9,289 47.4 4.18 1.6 ≥50 years 37.6 28.6 46.7 101 2,773 49.9 4.44 0.9 Male 22.8 16.3 29.3 653 20,064 42.0 3.19 1.9 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 8 ^ ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 30.1 10.9 49.2 51 1,407 47.5 9.41 1.4 30-49 years 20.0 13.4 26.5 355 11,121 38.8 3.21 1.6 ≥50 years 25.7 18.2 33.3 239 7,288 43.0 3.72 1.3 Percent of women/men in a union with access to credit Female 38.4 29.6 47.2 731 20,606 48.7 4.33 2.4 15-19 years 22.9 13.3 32.5 60 1,496 45.6 4.7 0.8 20-29 years 39.1 26.5 51.7 249 7,048 49.8 6.18 2.0 30-49 years 39.8 30.4 49.2 321 9,289 48.8 4.64 1.7 ≥50 years 40.1 28.9 51.4 101 2,773 50.5 5.52 1.1 Male 33.9 26.9 41.0 653 20,064 47.4 3.47 1.9 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 8 247 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 30.8 16.2 45.4 51 1,407 47.9 7.17 1.1 30-49 years 33.5 25.6 41.4 355 11,121 45.8 3.88 1.6 ≥50 years 35.8 26.8 44.9 239 7,288 47.2 4.43 1.5 Percent of women/men in a union who make decisions about credit Female 72.6 63.3 81.8 271 7,909 44.7 4.54 1.7 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 14 342 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 14 342 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 14 342 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 76.3 64.9 87.6 93 2,754 42.8 5.54 1.2 Alone 44.6 33.0 56.3 93 2,754 50.0 5.67 1.1 Jointly 31.6 16.5 46.7 93 2,754 46.7 7.34 1.5 30-49 73.1 61.1 85.0 125 3,699 44.5 5.85 1.5 Alone 44.6 31.8 57.4 125 3,699 49.9 6.26 1.4 Jointly 28.5 14.0 42.9 125 3,699 45.3 7.08 1.7 ≥50 years 68.3 48.7 88.0 39 1,113 47.1 9.36 1.2 Alone 49.1 30.5 67.8 39 1,113 50.6 8.86 1.1 Jointly 19.2 7.7 30.7 39 1,113 39.9 5.45 0.9 Male 65.3 53.9 76.6 221 6,811 47.7 5.57 1.7 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 1 43 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 1 43 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 1 43 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 ^ ^ ^ 17 434 ^ ^ ^ IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 204 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.3. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MARSABIT Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Alone ^ ^ ^ 17 434 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 17 434 ^ ^ ^ 30-49 72.9 62.1 83.8 119 3,722 44.6 5.30 1.3 Alone 36.0 25.9 46.2 119 3,722 48.2 4.96 1.1 Jointly 36.9 21.8 52.0 119 3,722 48.5 7.39 1.7 ≥50 years 54.7 40.6 68.8 84 2,612 50.1 6.87 1.3 Alone 23.2 14.3 32.0 84 2,612 42.4 4.31 0.9 Jointly 31.6 17.8 45.4 84 2,612 46.8 6.73 1.3 RESILIENCE-RELATED Adaptive Capacity Index 30.8 27.6 34.1 977 26,409 13.4 1.60 3.7 Absorptive Capacity Index 33.0 30.1 35.8 977 26,409 13.6 1.42 3.3 Transformative Capacity Index 28.3 21.3 35.3 978 26,431 19.3 3.44 5.6 Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.8 3.6 4.0 879 23,904 1.4 0.09 1.9 Male and female adults 3.8 3.6 4.0 710 19,326 1.4 0.10 1.8 Adult female, no adult male 3.8 3.5 4.0 140 3,791 1.4 0.14 1.2 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 28 766 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs 2.8 1.4 4.2 978 26,431 16.5 0.67 1.3 Savings 0.6 0.0 1.2 978 26,431 7.8 0.30 1.2 Male and female adults 0.5 0.0 1.2 791 21,435 7.3 0.32 1.2 Adult female, no adult male 1.1 0.0 2.7 154 4,133 10.5 0.80 0.9 Adult male, no adult female 0.0 NA NA 32 843 0.0 NA 0.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Credit (including microfinance) 2.3 1.2 3.3 978 26,431 14.9 0.53 1.1 Male and female adults 2.3 1.0 3.5 791 21,435 14.8 0.60 1.1 Adult female, no adult male 2.3 0.0 4.7 154 4,133 15.2 1.14 0.9 Adult male, no adult female 2.1 0.0 6.3 32 843 14.4 2.07 0.8 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Index of social capital at the household level Overall index 68.4 65.7 71.2 978 26,431 23.2 1.36 1.8 Male and female adults 68.3 65.5 71.1 791 21,435 23.2 1.38 1.7 Adult female, no adult male 69.6 65.7 73.4 154 4,133 23.1 1.88 1.0 Adult male, no adult female 66.4 58.6 74.3 32 843 22.6 3.86 1.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 205 Lower Upper Table A1.3. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MARSABIT Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Bonding sub-index 70.2 66.8 73.6 978 26,431 24.6 1.67 2.1 Male and female adults 70.2 66.7 73.6 791 21,435 24.7 1.70 1.9 Adult female, no adult male 70.9 66.5 75.2 154 4,133 24.2 2.16 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 67.7 59.1 76.3 32 843 25.1 4.23 1.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Bridging sub-index 66.7 64.2 69.1 978 26,431 25.3 1.19 1.5 Male and female adults 66.4 63.9 68.9 791 21,435 25.3 1.22 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 68.3 64.4 72.1 154 4,133 24.9 1.89 0.9 Adult male, no adult female 65.2 55.2 75.2 32 843 26.1 4.92 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ ^ Results not reported when n<30. NA : Not applicable. NOTES: 1 See list of improved post-harvest handling and storage practices promoted by the RFSAs. 2 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. 3 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 206 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the household, based the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) - 30 day recall 83.0 77.5 88.5 995 24,866 31.7 2.7 2.7 Male and female adults 83.3 77.6 89.0 758 19,534 30.7 2.80 2.5 Adult female, no adult male 85.5 79.6 91.4 151 3,598 29.7 2.90 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 74.5 50.8 98.2 86 1,734 44.3 11.65 2.4 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Level of severity Moderate 53.8 48.8 58.7 995 24,866 28.3 2.44 2.7 Severe 29.2 25.1 33.3 995 24,866 27.9 2.0 2.3 Percentage of households with poor food consumption score (FCS) 4.5 3.1 6.0 995 24,866 20.8 0.73 1.1 Male and female adults 4.2 2.6 5.7 758 19,534 19.7 0.76 1.1 Adult female, no adult male 6.0 0.6 11.5 151 3,598 24.4 2.69 1.4 Adult male, no adult female 5.6 0.0 11.4 86 1,734 25.5 2.88 1.0 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percentage of households with borderline FCS 11.9 9.0 14.9 995 24,866 32.4 1.46 1.4 Male and female adults 11.4 8.4 14.4 758 19,534 31.3 1.48 1.3 Adult female, no adult male 11.8 6.3 17.3 151 3,598 33.1 2.7 1.0 Adult male, no adult female 18.5 6.9 30.1 86 1,734 43.3 5.7 1.2 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percentage of households with adequate FCS 83.5 79.9 87.1 995 24,866 37.1 1.76 1.5 Male and female adults 84.4 80.6 88.3 758 19,534 35.7 1.89 1.5 Adult female, no adult male 82.2 75.4 89.0 151 3,598 39.2 3.34 1.0 Adult male, no adult female 75.9 62.5 89.3 86 1,734 47.6 6.58 1.3 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Mean FCS 60.0 57.7 62.2 995 24,866 18.1 1.11 1.9 Male and female adults 60.2 57.9 62.6 758 19,534 17.3 1.16 1.8 Adult female, no adult male 58.3 55.6 61.0 151 3,598 18.8 1.31 0.9 Adult male, no adult female 60.6 48.2 73.1 86 1,734 25.7 6.13 2.2 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA POVERTY INDICATORS Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy for income) in USG-assisted areas 2010 USD, PPP 2011 1.9 1.5 2.3 987 135,013 3.1 0.2 1.8 Male and female adults 1.9 1.5 2.3 754 118,700 3.0 0.19 1.7 Adult female, no adult male 1.9 1.5 2.3 149 13,903 2.5 0.20 1.0 Adult male, no adult female 3.3 2.3 4.2 84 2,411 6.3 0.46 0.7 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less thatn $1.90/day 2011 PPP 67.5 60.8 74.1 987 135,013 46.9 3.27 2.2 Male and female adults 68.8 62.0 75.7 754 118,700 43.1 3.37 2.1 Adult female, no adult male 61.1 50.0 72.2 149 13,903 59.1 5.46 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 37.6 18.7 56.5 84 2,411 105.9 9.30 0.8 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Table A1.4. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - ISIOLO Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Indicator Value Confidence Interval Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 207 Lower Upper Table A1.4. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - ISIOLO Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Indicator Value Confidence Interval Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percentage shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line 39.8 37.5 42.1 592 91,120 20.8 1.14 1.3 Male and female adults 40.1 37.5 42.8 496 81,722 18.9 1.31 1.5 Adult female, no adult male 36.6 32.2 40.9 78 8,492 22.1 2.15 0.9 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 18 906 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA WASH INDICATORS Percent of households using basic drinking water services 4.5 2.5 6.5 972 24,409 20.7 1.0 1.5 On premise 2.9 1.4 4.5 972 24,409 16.8 0.8 1.4 ≤ 30-minute roundtrip 1.6 0.6 2.6 972 24,409 12.5 0.5 1.3 Gendered household type Male and female adults 3.6 1.4 5.8 750 19,314 18.6 1.1 1.6 Adult female, no adult male 5.6 0.0 11.2 147 3,492 23.0 2.8 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 13.0 5.8 20.1 75 1,603 33.8 3.4 0.9 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of households in target areas practicing correct use of recommended household water treatment technologies 6.0 2.7 9.3 996 24,902 23.8 1.61 2.1 Chlorination 3.4 0.4 6.5 996 24,902 18.3 1.5 2.6 Flocculant/Disinfectant 0.5 0.0 0.9 996 24,902 6.7 0.2 1.0 Filtration 0.0 NA NA 996 24,902 0.0 NA 0.0 Solar Disinfection 0.0 NA NA 996 24,902 0.0 NA 0.0 Boiling 2.5 0.9 4.0 996 24,902 15.5 0.74 1.5 Percentage of households with access to a basic sanitation service 11.5 6.0 17.0 996 24,902 32.0 2.70 2.7 Male and female adults 12.7 5.9 19.5 758 19,554 32.8 3.35 2.8 Adult female, no adult male 7.6 3.0 12.3 151 3,598 27.2 2.30 1.0 Adult male, no adult female 6.3 1.0 11.6 87 1,750 27.1 2.61 0.9 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of households in target areas practicing open defecation 33.5 21.9 45.1 996 24,902 47.2 5.70 3.8 Male and female adults 33.0 21.6 44.3 758 19,554 46.3 5.58 3.3 Adult female, no adult male 38.7 22.3 55.1 151 3,598 49.9 8.05 2.0 Adult male, no adult female 28.8 9.6 48.0 87 1,750 50.5 9.44 1.7 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises 17.1 0.0 34.4 102 2,530 37.8 8.28 2.2 Male and female adults 9.6 0.0 21.5 67 2,028 26.4 5.82 1.8 Adult female, no adult male ^ ^ ^ 9 199 ^ ^ ^ Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 26 304 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 208 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.4. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - ISIOLO Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Indicator Value Confidence Interval AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percent of farmers who used financial services (savings, agricultural credit and/or agricultural insurance) in the past 12 months 18.7 12.5 24.9 514 13,800 39.0 3.05 1.8 Male 16.7 12.1 21.3 376 10,139 37.3 2.26 1.2 Female 24.1 10.2 38.0 138 3,660 43.1 6.83 1.9 Percent of farmers who practiced the value chain interventions promoted by the activity in the past 12 months 19.4 7.7 31.1 140 4,196 39.7 5.71 1.7 Male 17.8 2.5 33.1 107 3,123 37.3 7.50 2.1 Female 23.9 9.5 38.3 33 1,073 39.2 7.07 1.0 Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies Greengrams NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sex Male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30+ years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved/certified seed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cultural practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Seedling production and transplantation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Kitchen gardens using sunken pits NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of natural barriers/cover crops NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Zaï pits (pot-holing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of minimum tillage practices NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting nitrogen-fixing trees NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of organic manure NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Soil testing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inoculant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 209 Lower Upper Table A1.4. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - ISIOLO Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Indicator Value Confidence Interval Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of rainwater harvesting technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drought early warning information/systems NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Aflatoxin prevention and control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of well-equipped food storage structures NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Temperature and humidity control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorghum NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sex Male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30+ years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved/certified seed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cultural practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Seedling production and transplantation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Kitchen gardens using sunken pits NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of natural barriers/cover crops NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Zaï pits (pot-holing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of minimum tillage practices NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting nitrogen-fixing trees NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 210 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.4. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - ISIOLO Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Indicator Value Confidence Interval Use of organic manure NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Soil testing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inoculant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of rainwater harvesting technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drought early warning information/systems NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Aflatoxin prevention and control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of well-equipped food storage structures NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Temperature and humidity control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Contract farming NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of training and extension services NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Selling products through community farmer associations NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved bulking NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorting and grading NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Other improved practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cattle (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 26.8 14.7 38.9 219 5,515 44.4 5.79 1.9 Sex Male 26.9 15.5 38.2 156 4,051 44.5 5.43 1.5 Female 26.6 3.0 50.2 63 1,464 44.5 10.93 1.9 Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 21 432 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 28.6 15.6 41.7 198 5,083 45.3 6.27 1.9 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 0.2 0.0 0.6 219 5,515 4.4 0.21 0.7 Use of livestock health services and products 8.4 0.0 17.6 219 5,515 27.9 4.38 2.3 Use of improved shelters 0.0 NA NA 219 5,515 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 NA NA 219 5,515 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of improved milking techniques 0.0 NA NA 219 5,515 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 1.0 0.0 3.2 219 5,515 10.2 1.04 1.5 Utilization of set grazing areas 15.7 7.9 23.4 219 5,515 36.4 3.71 1.5 Improved fodder production 1.3 0.0 2.9 219 5,515 11.3 0.79 1.0 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 211 Lower Upper Table A1.4. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - ISIOLO Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Indicator Value Confidence Interval Fencing off pasture plots 0.0 NA NA 219 5,515 0.0 NA 0.0 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 0.8 0.0 2.6 219 5,515 8.9 0.84 1.4 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 0.0 NA NA 219 5,515 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of water pans for livestock 0.6 0.0 1.5 219 5,515 7.7 0.46 0.9 Use of sand dams for livestock 3.2 0.7 5.7 219 5,515 17.6 1.18 1.0 Use of rock catchments for livestock 0.0 NA NA 219 5,515 0.0 NA 0.0 Goats (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 33.8 18.0 49.5 417 11,015 47.3 7.70 3.3 Sex Male 34.6 19.8 49.3 294 7,864 47.6 7.21 2.6 Female 31.7 11.3 52.1 123 3,151 46.7 9.91 2.4 Age 15-29 years 26.8 11.0 42.5 60 1,584 44.7 7.59 1.3 30+ years 34.9 18.8 51.1 357 9,431 47.7 7.90 3.1 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 0.3 0.0 1.1 417 11,015 5.8 0.35 1.2 Use of livestock health services and products 16.1 0.0 34.3 417 11,015 36.8 8.90 4.9 Use of improved shelters 1.6 0.2 3.1 417 11,015 12.7 0.71 1.1 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 NA NA 417 11,015 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of improved milking techniques 0.0 NA NA 417 11,015 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 1.8 0.0 4.2 417 11,015 13.3 1.17 1.8 Utilization of set grazing areas 12.5 7.5 17.4 417 11,015 33.1 2.43 1.5 Improved fodder production 1.7 0.0 3.5 417 11,015 12.9 0.89 1.4 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots 0.7 0.0 1.6 417 11,015 8.6 0.44 1.0 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 0.6 0.0 1.5 417 11,015 7.8 0.45 1.2 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 0.5 0.0 1.2 417 11,015 6.8 0.36 1.1 Use of water pans for livestock 4.7 0.2 9.3 417 11,015 21.2 2.23 2.1 Use of sand dams for livestock 7.5 3.1 11.9 417 11,015 26.3 2.16 1.7 Use of rock catchments for livestock 0.0 NA NA 417 11,015 0.0 NA 0.0 Camels (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 16.1 1.0 31.2 59 1,305 37.1 6.67 1.4 Sex Male 14.4 4.2 24.6 41 890 35.5 4.43 0.8 Female ^ ^ ^ 18 416 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 8 164 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 18.4 1.2 35.7 51 1,141 39.2 7.63 1.4 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 0.0 NA NA 59 1,305 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of livestock health services and products 6.3 0.0 21.7 59 1,305 24.5 6.79 2.1 Use of improved shelters 0.0 NA NA 59 1,305 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 NA NA 59 1,305 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of improved milking techniques 0.0 NA NA 59 1,305 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 0.0 NA NA 59 1,305 0.0 NA 0.0 Utilization of set grazing areas 14.5 0.0 30.2 59 1,305 35.5 6.91 1.5 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 212 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.4. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - ISIOLO Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Indicator Value Confidence Interval Improved fodder production 1.6 0.0 4.7 59 1,305 12.6 1.37 0.8 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots 0.0 NA NA 59 1,305 0.0 NA 0.0 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 0.0 NA NA 59 1,305 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 0.0 NA NA 59 1,305 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of water pans for livestock 0.0 NA NA 59 1,305 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of sand dams for livestock 0.0 NA NA 59 1,305 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of rock catchments for livestock 0.0 NA NA 59 1,305 0.0 NA 0.0 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within targeted areas - livestock Cattle (kilogram of offtake per head of cattle per producer) 13.9 9.6 18.2 213 5,229 21.4 2.07 1.4 Sex Male 14.1 9.7 18.6 152 3,870 21.1 2.14 1.3 Female 13.2 6.9 19.6 61 1,359 22.2 2.94 1.0 Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 20 407 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 14.0 9.1 18.8 193 4,822 20.9 2.32 1.5 Goats (kilogram of offtake per head of goat per producer) 8.4 7.1 9.7 407 10,364 6.5 0.64 2.0 Sex Male 8.0 6.6 9.3 286 7,360 6.4 0.65 1.7 Female 9.3 7.7 11.0 121 3,003 6.7 0.82 1.3 Age 15-29 years 6.1 4.2 8.1 58 1,447 6.4 0.95 1.1 30+ years 8.7 7.4 10.1 349 8,916 6.5 0.67 1.9 Camels (kilogram of offtake per head of camel per producer) 4.2 0.0 9.7 57 1,226 15.5 2.44 1.2 Sex Male 4.3 0.0 12.2 40 843 16.6 3.42 1.3 Female ^ ^ ^ 17 382 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 7 139 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 4.8 0.0 11.1 50 1,087 16.4 2.79 1.2 Cow milk (liters per milking cow per day per producer) ^ ^ ^ 20 577 ^ ^ ^ Sex Male ^ ^ ^ 18 527 ^ ^ ^ Female ^ ^ ^ 2 50 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 2 35 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years ^ ^ ^ 18 542 ^ ^ ^ Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 213 Lower Upper Table A1.4. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - ISIOLO Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Indicator Value Confidence Interval Camel milk (liters per milking camel per day per producer) 1.6 1.4 1.9 34 685 0.8 0.10 0.7 Sex Male ^ ^ ^ 23 492 ^ ^ ^ Female ^ ^ ^ 11 193 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 5 96 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years ^ ^ ^ 29 589 ^ ^ ^ WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 12.4 8.2 16.6 1,035 27,936 32.9 2.06 2.0 <19 years 10.1 5.2 15.0 271 6,930 31.0 2.40 1.3 19+ years 13.1 8.2 18.1 764 21,006 33.5 2.44 2.0 Percent of births receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 70.6 64.8 76.5 520 14,298 45.6 2.89 1.4 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 90.4 85.2 95.5 581 16,027 29.5 2.53 2.1 15-19 years 78.4 62.9 94.0 34 910 41.7 7.38 1.0 20-29 years 89.7 83.0 96.3 238 6,421 30.5 3.27 1.7 30-49 years 92.1 86.9 97.4 309 8,697 26.9 2.58 1.7 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methods in the past 12 months 85.2 77.3 93.2 162 4,575 35.6 3.89 1.4 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 4 109 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 4 109 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 4 109 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 84.5 74.6 94.5 77 2,064 36.4 4.86 1.2 Alone 9.6 3.3 15.9 77 2,064 29.7 3.08 0.9 Jointly 74.9 64.6 85.2 77 2,064 43.6 5.04 1.0 30-49 85.1 76.1 94.2 81 2,403 35.8 4.42 1.1 Alone 21.4 5.2 37.6 81 2,403 41.3 7.90 1.7 Jointly 63.7 43.7 83.8 81 2,403 48.4 9.77 1.8 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 30.3 23.8 36.9 507 13,900 46.0 3.22 1.6 Traditional 2.4 0.4 4.5 507 13,900 15.5 1.01 1.5 Modern 28.1 21.4 34.8 507 13,900 45.0 3.30 1.7 CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months 57.3 43.5 71.2 85 2,054 49.8 6.75 1.3 Male 52.9 38.1 67.7 46 1,059 52.8 7.25 0.9 Female 62.0 39.7 84.3 39 994 49.3 10.96 1.4 Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) 6.0 1.6 10.4 222 5,914 23.8 2.15 1.3 Male 6.1 0.8 11.4 108 2,988 23.4 2.60 1.2 Female 5.9 0.0 12.4 114 2,926 23.9 3.19 1.4 Percent of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 11.2 4.4 18.0 222 5,914 31.6 3.35 1.6 Male 11.8 5.0 18.7 108 2,988 31.6 3.36 1.1 Female 10.5 0.9 20.2 114 2,926 31.1 4.75 1.6 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) who had diarrhea in the prior two weeks 14.7 10.4 18.9 824 21,590 35.4 2.09 1.7 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 214 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.4. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - ISIOLO Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Indicator Value Confidence Interval Male 14.4 9.0 19.9 426 11,231 35.1 2.69 1.6 Female 14.9 9.7 20.0 398 10,360 35.7 2.52 1.4 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) with diarrhea treated with Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) 82.2 73.6 90.9 119 3,163 38.4 4.23 1.2 Male 83.9 71.6 96.3 62 1,622 36.7 6.06 1.3 Female 80.4 68.6 92.2 57 1,541 39.3 5.81 1.1 GENDER - CASH Percent of women and men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Female 12.4 7.9 16.9 704 20,371 33.0 2.20 1.8 15-19 years 0.0 NA NA 36 1,002 0.0 NA 0.0 20-29 years 6.9 3.0 10.9 241 6,873 25.3 1.93 1.2 30-49 years 19.4 11.7 27.0 320 9,462 38.5 3.75 1.7 ≥50 years 7.1 1.8 12.5 107 3,033 25.6 2.63 1.1 Male 42.6 34.9 50.2 698 18,820 49.5 3.75 2.0 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 2 54 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 45.9 32.2 59.5 100 2,466 53.0 6.71 1.3 30-49 years 51.8 41.9 61.7 362 9,959 50.0 4.87 1.9 ≥50 years 26.5 20.1 32.9 234 6,342 44.8 3.15 1.1 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self￾earned cash 85.9 77.1 94.7 74 2,289 35.0 4.22 1.0 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years ^ ^ ^ 15 427 ^ ^ ^ 30-49 years 86.3 76.6 95.9 54 1,720 32.2 4.74 1.1 ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 5 143 ^ ^ ^ Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner's self-earned cash 49.4 34.7 64.0 74 2,289 50.3 7.0 1.2 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years ^ ^ ^ 15 427 ^ ^ ^ 30-49 years 49.7 34.5 65.0 54 1,720 46.7 7.49 1.2 ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 5 143 ^ ^ ^ Percent of men in union and earning cash who report spouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash 59.3 51.0 67.6 268 7,623 49.2 4.06 1.3 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 1 38 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 61.9 42.1 81.6 40 1,038 50.5 9.73 1.2 30-49 years 57.0 46.3 67.8 170 4,983 48.2 5.28 1.4 ≥50 years 66.4 51.2 81.5 57 1,563 47.8 7.45 1.2 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 215 Lower Upper Table A1.4. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - ISIOLO Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Indicator Value Confidence Interval GENDER - CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men in a union who are members of a community group Female 35.1 28.2 42.0 692 18,201 47.8 3.38 1.9 15-19 years 25.9 11.0 40.7 36 909 44.7 7.3 1.0 20-29 years 39.8 32.0 47.6 237 6,128 49.5 3.82 1.2 30-49 years 36.2 26.2 46.1 315 8,478 47.3 4.89 1.8 ≥50 years 23.9 12.3 35.5 104 2,686 43.0 5.71 1.4 Male 34.3 28.4 40.1 680 17,833 47.5 2.87 1.6 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 2 53 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 25.4 12.9 38.0 97 2,314 45.8 6.16 1.3 30-49 years 37.9 29.6 46.2 352 9,422 47.9 4.08 1.6 ≥50 years 32.1 23.4 40.8 229 6,044 46.6 4.27 1.4 Percent of women/men in a union with access to credit Female 34.1 30.0 38.2 692 18,201 47.4 2.02 1.1 15-19 years 21.5 4.1 38.9 36 909 41.9 8.5 1.2 20-29 years 38.1 32.1 44.1 237 6,128 49.1 2.93 0.9 30-49 years 35.0 28.7 41.4 315 8,478 47.0 3.10 1.2 ≥50 years 26.0 18.0 34.1 104 2,686 44.3 3.95 0.9 Male 37.1 29.9 44.2 680 17,833 48.3 3.51 1.9 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 2 53 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 41.5 32.1 50.9 97 2,314 51.8 4.60 0.9 30-49 years 39.8 28.2 51.4 352 9,422 48.3 5.71 2.2 ≥50 years 30.8 25.0 36.7 229 6,044 46.1 2.86 0.9 Percent of women/men in a union who make decisions about credit Female 79.5 70.9 88.1 230 6,201 40.4 4.21 1.6 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 7 196 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 7 196 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 7 196 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 79.1 68.5 89.7 90 2,335 40.9 5.21 1.2 Alone 14.0 2.6 25.4 90 2,335 34.9 5.59 1.5 Jointly 65.2 51.9 78.4 90 2,335 47.9 6.51 1.3 30-49 79.3 67.7 90.8 105 2,971 40.7 5.66 1.4 Alone 21.1 11.7 30.6 105 2,971 41.0 4.63 1.2 Jointly 58.2 43.9 72.4 105 2,971 49.6 6.98 1.4 ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 28 700 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 28 700 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 28 700 ^ ^ ^ Male 84.9 78.2 91.6 242 6,609 35.9 3.28 1.4 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 1 37 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 1 37 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 1 37 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 77.3 57.3 97.4 40 960 42.4 9.66 1.4 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 216 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.4. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - ISIOLO Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Indicator Value Confidence Interval Alone 35.5 16.3 54.6 40 960 48.4 9.24 1.2 Jointly 41.9 24.2 59.5 40 960 50.0 8.51 1.1 30-49 87.3 81.5 93.0 132 3,748 33.5 2.84 1.0 Alone 31.2 20.9 41.5 132 3,748 46.5 5.07 1.3 Jointly 56.0 46.6 65.4 132 3,748 49.8 4.61 1.1 ≥50 years 83.7 74.1 93.3 69 1,864 37.2 4.71 1.1 Alone 20.6 7.1 34.2 69 1,864 40.8 6.63 1.4 Jointly 63.1 48.5 77.6 69 1,864 48.6 7.11 1.2 RESILIENCE-RELATED Adaptive Capacity Index 37.6 33.9 41.2 996 24,903 13.5 1.81 4.2 Absorptive Capacity Index 42.9 39.6 46.1 996 24,903 15.1 1.59 3.3 Transformative Capacity Index 50.4 42.0 58.7 996 24,903 21.4 4.10 6.0 Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.4 3.2 3.6 855 21,247 1.2 0.08 2.0 Male and female adults 3.4 3.2 3.5 652 16,588 1.2 0.09 1.9 Adult female, no adult male 3.3 3.0 3.6 120 2,974 1.2 0.15 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 3.7 3.3 4.1 83 1,685 1.4 0.20 1.3 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs 5.9 2.0 9.8 996 24,903 23.6 1.93 2.6 Savings 5.6 1.8 9.4 996 24,903 23.0 1.86 2.5 Male and female adults 5.4 1.6 9.1 759 19,571 22.2 1.84 2.3 Adult female, no adult male 7.9 1.2 14.6 151 3,598 27.6 3.30 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 3.6 0.0 10.0 86 1,734 20.7 3.17 1.4 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Credit (including microfinance) 2.1 0.1 4.1 996 24,903 14.4 1.00 2.2 Male and female adults 2.0 0.0 4.0 759 19,571 13.8 0.96 1.9 Adult female, no adult male 2.5 0.0 6.4 151 3,598 16.1 1.91 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 2.4 0.0 6.7 86 1,734 17.0 2.11 1.2 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Index of social capital at the household level Overall index 69.7 66.5 72.9 997 24,918 24.0 1.56 2.0 Male and female adults 70.1 66.7 73.6 759 19,571 23.3 1.69 2.0 Adult female, no adult male 67.6 62.7 72.5 151 3,598 25.6 2.41 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 69.3 63.2 75.4 87 1,750 29.1 2.99 1.0 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 217 Lower Upper Table A1.4. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - ISIOLO Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Indicator Value Confidence Interval Bonding sub-index 70.0 67.1 72.9 997 24,918 24.8 1.42 1.8 Male and female adults 70.5 67.4 73.5 759 19,571 24.0 1.50 1.7 Adult female, no adult male 69.3 64.3 74.3 151 3,598 26.0 2.44 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 66.1 59.9 72.3 87 1,750 30.7 3.03 0.9 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bridging sub-index 69.4 65.8 73.0 997 24,918 25.7 1.79 2.2 Male and female adults 69.8 65.8 73.8 759 19,571 24.9 1.97 2.2 Adult female, no adult male 65.9 60.5 71.2 151 3,598 27.7 2.63 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 72.5 66.0 79.0 87 1,750 30.4 3.20 1.0 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ^ Results not reported when n<30. NA : Not applicable. NOTES: 1 See list of improved post-harvest handling and storage practices promoted by the RFSAs. 2 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. 3 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 218 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the household, based the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) - 30 day recall 89.0 85.3 92.6 1,899 122,728 28.8 1.8 2.8 Male and female adults 88.3 84.4 92.3 1,301 84,562 29.4 1.97 2.4 Adult female, no adult male 94.3 91.0 97.6 427 27,357 21.2 1.65 1.6 Adult male, no adult female 79.7 71.9 87.4 164 10,442 37.2 3.89 1.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 367 ^ ^ ^ Level of severity Moderate 30.1 28.8 31.4 1,899 122,728 18.5 0.65 1.5 Severe 58.8 55.0 62.7 1,899 122,728 28.1 1.9 3.0 Percentage of households with poor food consumption score (FCS) 37.5 31.9 43.0 1,899 122,728 48.4 2.79 2.5 Male and female adults 36.4 29.6 43.1 1,301 84,562 48.0 3.38 2.5 Adult female, no adult male 44.0 37.5 50.5 427 27,357 49.8 3.26 1.4 Adult male, no adult female 28.4 19.0 37.7 164 10,442 45.4 4.68 1.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 367 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with borderline FCS 20.8 18.1 23.4 1,899 122,728 40.6 1.32 1.4 Male and female adults 20.5 17.5 23.6 1,301 84,562 40.3 1.51 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 21.5 17.6 25.4 427 27,357 41.3 1.96 1.0 Adult male, no adult female 20.4 13.2 27.6 164 10,442 40.6 3.61 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 367 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with adequate FCS 41.8 36.6 47.0 1,899 122,728 49.3 2.60 2.3 Male and female adults 43.1 36.5 49.6 1,301 84,562 49.4 3.28 2.4 Adult female, no adult male 34.5 28.6 40.5 427 27,357 47.7 2.98 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 51.2 41.8 60.7 164 10,442 50.3 4.74 1.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 367 ^ ^ ^ Mean FCS 39.8 36.6 42.9 1,899 122,728 22.6 1.56 3.0 Male and female adults 40.8 36.9 44.7 1,301 84,562 23.2 1.95 3.0 Adult female, no adult male 34.8 32.2 37.4 427 27,357 18.7 1.31 1.4 Adult male, no adult female 44.5 38.9 50.2 164 10,442 24.8 2.82 1.5 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 367 ^ ^ ^ POVERTY INDICATORS Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy for income) in USG-assisted areas 2010 USD, PPP 2011 1.3 1.0 1.6 1,900 616,742 2.6 0.1 2.5 Male and female adults 1.3 1.0 1.6 1,304 489,771 2.2 0.16 2.5 Adult female, no adult male 1.0 0.8 1.2 426 106,309 2.0 0.10 1.0 Adult male, no adult female 3.4 2.3 4.4 163 19,413 11.2 0.53 0.6 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 1,249 ^ ^ ^ Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less thatn $1.90/day 2011 PPP 80.6 74.8 86.3 1,900 616,742 39.6 2.88 3.2 Male and female adults 80.2 74.1 86.3 1,304 489,771 37.0 3.05 3.0 Adult female, no adult male 87.1 82.5 91.8 426 106,309 38.1 2.33 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 53.4 40.2 66.6 163 19,413 82.3 6.63 1.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 1,249 ^ ^ ^ Table A1.5. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MC RFSA AREAS Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 219 Lower Upper Table A1.5. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MC RFSA AREAS Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percentage shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line 64.0 60.2 67.8 1,393 496,975 24.3 1.89 2.9 Male and female adults 63.6 59.4 67.8 1,004 392,746 22.7 2.10 2.9 Adult female, no adult male 66.6 63.3 70.0 332 92,647 22.8 1.67 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 54.8 43.4 66.2 51 10,369 35.9 5.72 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 1,214 ^ ^ ^ WASH INDICATORS Percent of households using basic drinking water services 6.8 4.4 9.3 1,891 122,259 25.2 1.2 2.1 On premise 1.9 0.9 2.9 1,891 122,259 13.6 0.5 1.6 ≤ 30-minute roundtrip 4.9 2.8 7.1 1,891 122,259 21.6 1.1 2.2 Gendered household type Male and female adults 5.7 3.3 8.1 1,302 84,438 23.2 1.2 1.8 Adult female, no adult male 8.1 3.9 12.4 422 27,120 27.4 2.1 1.6 Adult male, no adult female 12.8 5.8 19.8 160 10,334 33.5 3.5 1.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 367 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households in target areas practicing correct use of recommended household water treatment technologies 10.6 8.5 12.7 1,908 123,109 30.8 1.1 1.5 Chlorination 3.1 2.0 4.2 1,908 123,109 17.4 0.55 1.4 Flocculant/Disinfectant 1.7 0.8 2.6 1,908 123,109 12.8 0.46 1.6 Filtration 1.1 0.5 1.6 1,908 123,109 10.2 0.29 1.3 Solar Disinfection 0.4 0.0 0.8 1,908 123,109 5.9 0.23 1.7 Boiling 5.4 3.6 7.1 1,908 123,109 22.5 0.9 1.7 Percentage of households with access to a basic sanitation service 6.6 3.5 9.8 1,908 123,109 24.9 1.57 2.8 Male and female adults 7.4 3.3 11.5 1,308 84,820 26.2 2.06 2.9 Adult female, no adult male 4.2 1.8 6.7 428 27,408 20.2 1.23 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 6.9 0.0 13.9 165 10,515 25.5 3.53 1.8 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 367 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households in target areas practicing open defecation 65.9 55.7 76.2 1,908 123,109 47.4 5.14 4.7 Male and female adults 67.4 57.2 77.7 1,308 84,820 46.8 5.13 4.0 Adult female, no adult male 70.7 59.5 81.8 428 27,408 45.7 5.59 2.5 Adult male, no adult female 40.4 28.3 52.6 165 10,515 49.4 6.09 1.6 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 367 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises 49.2 38.7 59.7 223 12,162 50.1 5.19 1.5 Male and female adults 45.5 34.2 56.8 159 8,524 53.4 5.64 1.3 Adult female, no adult male 58.3 39.3 77.4 33 1,898 52.2 9.54 1.0 Adult male, no adult female 57.6 38.0 77.3 31 1,739 53.0 9.84 1.0 Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 220 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.5. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MC RFSA AREAS Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percent of farmers who used financial services (savings, agricultural credit and/or agricultural insurance) in the past 12 months 8.5 5.9 11.2 1,220 82,856 28.0 1.32 1.6 Male 10.0 6.8 13.3 636 43,232 30.0 1.63 1.4 Female 6.9 4.0 9.9 584 39,624 25.4 1.47 1.4 Percent of farmers who practiced the value chain interventions promoted by the activity in the past 12 months 12.1 6.2 18.0 290 19,278 32.7 2.95 1.5 Male 10.3 5.0 15.7 159 10,430 30.9 2.67 1.1 Female 14.2 5.9 22.4 131 8,848 35.0 4.15 1.4 Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies Greengrams NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sex Male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30+ years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved/certified seed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cultural practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Seedling production and transplantation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Kitchen gardens using sunken pits NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of natural barriers/cover crops NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Zaï pits (pot-holing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of minimum tillage practices NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting nitrogen-fixing trees NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of organic manure NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Soil testing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inoculant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 221 Lower Upper Table A1.5. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MC RFSA AREAS Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Use of rainwater harvesting technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drought early warning information/systems NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Aflatoxin prevention and control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of well-equipped food storage structures NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Temperature and humidity control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorghum NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sex Male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30+ years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved/certified seed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cultural practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Seedling production and transplantation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Kitchen gardens using sunken pits NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of natural barriers/cover crops NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Zaï pits (pot-holing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of minimum tillage practices NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting nitrogen-fixing trees NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of organic manure NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 222 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.5. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MC RFSA AREAS Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Soil testing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inoculant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of rainwater harvesting technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drought early warning information/systems NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Aflatoxin prevention and control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of well-equipped food storage structures NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Temperature and humidity control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Contract farming NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of training and extension services NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Selling products through community farmer associations NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved bulking NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorting and grading NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Other improved practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cattle (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 67.0 58.0 75.9 440 21,017 47.1 4.42 2.0 Sex Male 66.8 57.4 76.3 219 10,254 47.2 4.65 1.5 Female 67.2 57.3 77.0 221 10,763 47.1 4.83 1.5 Age 15-29 years 66.2 53.9 78.4 100 4,545 47.6 5.97 1.3 30+ years 67.2 58.2 76.2 340 16,471 47.0 4.45 1.7 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 4.0 1.5 6.4 440 21,017 19.5 1.21 1.3 Use of livestock health services and products 32.6 25.4 39.8 440 21,017 46.9 3.53 1.6 Use of improved shelters 13.4 6.9 19.9 440 21,017 34.1 3.21 2.0 Use of improved calving techniques 1.2 0.0 2.5 440 21,017 10.7 0.68 1.3 Use of improved milking techniques 0.9 0.0 2.1 440 21,017 9.3 0.60 1.4 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 2.8 0.9 4.7 440 21,017 16.4 0.93 1.2 Utilization of set grazing areas 14.8 8.4 21.2 440 21,017 35.6 3.16 1.9 Improved fodder production 1.4 0.0 3.3 440 21,017 11.9 0.91 1.6 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species 2.6 0.2 4.9 440 21,017 15.8 1.17 1.5 Fencing off pasture plots 11.9 4.2 19.7 440 21,017 32.5 3.85 2.5 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 223 Lower Upper Table A1.5. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MC RFSA AREAS Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 0.9 0.0 2.0 440 21,017 9.5 0.54 1.2 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 2.1 0.0 4.7 440 21,017 14.3 1.30 1.9 Use of water pans for livestock 10.3 6.4 14.2 440 21,017 30.5 1.94 1.3 Use of sand dams for livestock 5.6 2.7 8.6 440 21,017 23.1 1.46 1.3 Use of rock catchments for livestock NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Goats (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 45.5 38.5 52.4 953 66,394 49.8 3.47 2.2 Sex Male 44.1 35.9 52.4 500 34,969 49.7 4.11 1.9 Female 47.0 40.0 54.0 453 31,425 50.0 3.51 1.5 Age 15-29 years 48.4 40.1 56.7 198 12,046 50.1 4.11 1.2 30+ years 44.8 37.3 52.3 755 54,348 49.8 3.74 2.1 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 1.3 0.4 2.2 953 66,394 11.4 0.46 1.3 Use of livestock health services and products 13.5 9.7 17.3 953 66,394 34.2 1.90 1.7 Use of improved shelters 16.7 11.9 21.6 953 66,394 37.3 2.43 2.0 Use of improved calving techniques 0.1 0.0 0.2 953 66,394 2.5 0.06 0.8 Use of improved milking techniques 0.3 0.0 0.8 953 66,394 5.1 0.27 1.6 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 1.4 0.5 2.3 953 66,394 11.7 0.44 1.2 Utilization of set grazing areas 13.1 10.1 16.1 953 66,394 33.7 1.48 1.4 Improved fodder production 0.2 0.0 0.5 953 66,394 4.5 0.16 1.1 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species 0.9 0.2 1.6 953 66,394 9.4 0.33 1.1 Fencing off pasture plots 3.8 1.3 6.3 953 66,394 19.1 1.25 2.0 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 0.9 0.0 1.7 953 66,394 9.4 0.42 1.4 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 0.8 0.1 1.5 953 66,394 8.8 0.36 1.3 Use of water pans for livestock 4.7 2.4 7.0 953 66,394 21.2 1.14 1.7 Use of sand dams for livestock 1.7 0.6 2.8 953 66,394 13.1 0.54 1.3 Use of rock catchments for livestock NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Camels (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 18.8 8.5 29.1 139 9,622 39.2 5.03 1.5 Sex Male 19.7 6.9 32.6 66 4,435 40.1 6.24 1.3 Female 18.0 7.9 28.0 73 5,187 38.7 4.79 1.1 Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 26 1,266 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 19.8 8.7 30.8 113 8,357 40.0 5.38 1.4 Use of improved livestock breeds/species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of livestock health services and products NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of improved shelters 13.7 4.0 23.3 139 9,622 34.5 4.69 1.6 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 NA NA 139 9,622 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of improved milking techniques 0.0 NA NA 139 9,622 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 0.0 NA NA 139 9,622 0.0 NA 0.0 Utilization of set grazing areas NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved fodder production NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 224 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.5. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MC RFSA AREAS Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots 11.0 0.0 23.3 139 9,622 31.5 5.96 2.2 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 1.0 0.0 3.3 139 9,622 10.2 1.09 1.3 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 0.9 0.0 2.7 139 9,622 9.4 0.90 1.1 Use of water pans for livestock 3.4 0.1 6.8 139 9,622 18.2 1.63 1.1 Use of sand dams for livestock 1.4 0.0 3.1 139 9,622 11.9 0.83 0.8 Use of rock catchments for livestock NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within targeted areas - livestock Cattle (kilogram of offtake per head of cattle per producer) 14.5 11.0 18.0 420 18,926 23.0 1.74 1.6 Sex Male 16.8 13.0 20.5 207 9,192 23.9 1.84 1.1 Female 12.3 8.4 16.3 213 9,735 21.9 1.94 1.3 Age 15-29 years 15.1 9.8 20.3 94 4,047 24.1 2.54 1.0 30+ years 14.3 10.7 18.0 326 14,879 22.7 1.78 1.4 Goats (kilogram of offtake per head of goat per producer) 5.0 3.9 6.1 934 58,834 6.8 0.55 2.5 Sex Male 5.3 4.3 6.4 489 30,821 6.6 0.51 1.7 Female 4.7 3.5 5.9 445 28,012 7.1 0.62 1.9 Age 15-29 years 5.8 4.0 7.6 195 10,668 7.3 0.91 1.7 30+ years 4.9 3.8 5.9 739 48,166 6.7 0.51 2.1 Camels (kilogram of offtake per head of camel per producer) 10.1 3.3 16.8 135 8,381 31.3 3.30 1.2 Sex Male 8.9 0.0 20.5 64 3,933 30.6 5.66 1.5 Female 11.1 1.1 21.1 71 4,448 32.2 4.77 1.2 Age 15-29 years NA NA NA 26 1,152 NA NA NA 30+ years 11.6 4.3 18.8 109 7,229 33.5 3.51 1.1 Cow milk (liters per milking cow per day per producer) 1.8 1.3 2.4 53 2,214 1.3 0.25 1.4 Sex Male ^ ^ ^ 27 1,182 ^ ^ ^ Female ^ ^ ^ 26 1,032 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 13 493 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 1.9 1.2 2.5 40 1,722 1.4 0.30 1.3 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 225 Lower Upper Table A1.5. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MC RFSA AREAS Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Camel milk (liters per milking camel per day per producer) 1.9 1.6 2.1 37 2,264 1.0 0.12 0.7 Sex Male ^ ^ ^ 19 1,020 ^ ^ ^ Female ^ ^ ^ 18 1,244 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 4 125 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 1.8 1.6 2.1 33 2,138 1.0 0.12 0.7 WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 5.5 3.4 7.7 1,667 122,590 22.8 1.08 1.9 <19 years 4.2 1.0 7.5 296 20,433 20.8 1.62 1.3 19+ years 5.8 3.4 8.1 1,371 102,157 23.2 1.17 1.9 Percent of births receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 59.3 53.8 64.9 953 70,232 49.1 2.77 1.7 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 75.0 67.9 82.1 1,052 76,212 43.3 3.55 2.7 15-19 years 60.7 46.1 75.3 71 4,710 49.2 7.18 1.2 20-29 years 78.5 70.2 86.8 492 34,876 41.1 4.15 2.2 30-49 years 73.4 65.7 81.2 489 36,626 44.2 3.88 1.9 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methods in the past 12 months 75.5 69.0 82.1 277 18,924 43.1 3.26 1.3 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 5 273 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 5 273 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 5 273 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 71.4 61.7 81.1 147 10,643 45.3 4.81 1.3 Alone 39.6 32.9 46.3 147 10,643 49.1 3.32 0.8 Jointly 31.8 23.4 40.3 147 10,643 46.7 4.19 1.1 30-49 80.2 72.2 88.2 125 8,009 40.0 3.98 1.1 Alone 40.6 29.1 52.1 125 8,009 49.3 5.71 1.3 Jointly 39.5 27.0 52.1 125 8,009 49.1 6.23 1.4 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 26.4 20.6 32.3 895 64,868 44.1 2.92 2.0 Traditional 1.5 0.4 2.6 895 64,868 12.1 0.54 1.3 Modern 25.4 19.6 31.2 895 64,868 43.6 2.89 2.0 CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months 56.9 48.5 65.2 197 13,060 49.7 4.17 1.2 Male 55.6 43.7 67.5 85 5,974 48.5 5.98 1.1 Female 57.9 48.8 67.0 112 7,086 50.9 4.55 0.9 Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) 2.0 0.7 3.2 430 29,708 13.9 0.63 0.9 Male 2.0 0.0 3.9 225 15,772 13.6 0.97 1.1 Female 1.9 0.3 3.5 205 13,936 13.7 0.80 0.8 Percent of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 6.7 4.3 9.1 430 29,708 25.1 1.21 1.0 Male 6.7 3.5 10.0 225 15,772 24.6 1.61 1.0 Female 6.7 2.7 10.7 205 13,936 24.9 2.00 1.1 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) who had diarrhea in the prior two weeks 24.9 21.3 28.6 1,663 111,569 43.3 1.83 1.7 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 226 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.5. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MC RFSA AREAS Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Male 26.7 21.5 31.9 838 56,636 44.1 2.60 1.7 Female 23.1 19.4 26.8 825 54,933 42.3 1.87 1.3 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) with diarrhea treated with Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) 79.1 74.1 84.2 420 27,792 40.7 2.53 1.3 Male 81.1 75.4 86.8 221 15,102 38.7 2.85 1.1 Female 76.8 69.2 84.3 199 12,690 43.3 3.80 1.2 GENDER - CASH Percent of women and men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Female 33.0 26.9 39.1 1,251 85,397 47.0 3.04 2.3 15-19 years 17.1 5.8 28.5 74 4,754 39.6 5.69 1.2 20-29 years 30.8 24.4 37.2 511 34,091 47.3 3.20 1.5 30-49 years 39.5 31.9 47.2 504 35,249 49.2 3.85 1.8 ≥50 years 26.0 17.1 34.9 162 11,303 44.0 4.47 1.3 Male 48.0 39.4 56.7 1,185 87,418 50.0 4.35 3.0 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 13 664 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 60.7 50.2 71.2 219 17,447 46.5 5.27 1.7 30-49 years 53.5 44.6 62.4 611 43,623 49.8 4.45 2.2 ≥50 years 31.1 21.2 41.0 342 25,685 45.0 4.96 2.0 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self￾earned cash 81.5 75.9 87.1 350 26,595 38.9 2.79 1.3 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 11 762 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 82.9 74.9 90.8 131 10,008 36.5 3.98 1.2 30-49 years 80.1 72.9 87.3 172 13,210 38.6 3.62 1.2 ≥50 years 81.0 66.4 95.5 36 2,615 38.6 7.29 1.1 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner's self-earned cash 31.3 24.2 38.4 350 26,595 46.4 3.55 1.4 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 11 762 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 36.6 26.2 47.0 131 10,008 46.6 5.21 1.3 30-49 years 29.3 22.2 36.4 172 13,210 44.0 3.57 1.1 ≥50 years 19.9 5.6 34.1 36 2,615 39.3 7.12 1.1 Percent of men in union and earning cash who report spouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash 47.1 40.7 53.5 485 36,230 50.0 3.19 1.4 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 1 19 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 53.1 44.9 61.3 116 9,066 47.8 4.11 0.9 30-49 years 45.2 36.1 54.2 292 20,714 49.8 4.53 1.6 ≥50 years 45.0 28.9 61.1 76 6,431 45.5 8.06 1.5 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 227 Lower Upper Table A1.5. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MC RFSA AREAS Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT GENDER - CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men in a union who are members of a community group Female 40.7 33.9 47.4 1,188 79,959 49.1 3.37 2.4 15-19 years 41.7 23.9 59.5 70 4,309 52.2 8.9 1.4 20-29 years 42.5 35.2 49.8 484 32,068 50.2 3.64 1.6 30-49 years 40.4 33.0 47.8 480 33,111 49.1 3.71 1.7 ≥50 years 35.4 23.0 47.7 154 10,472 48.0 6.18 1.6 Male 34.5 28.0 41.0 1,057 74,842 47.6 3.24 2.2 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 10 484 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 40.7 29.5 51.9 197 14,792 47.3 5.62 1.7 30-49 years 35.2 28.3 42.1 555 38,355 47.7 3.46 1.7 ≥50 years 29.6 20.3 39.0 295 21,212 44.8 4.71 1.8 Percent of women/men in a union with access to credit Female 28.6 23.5 33.8 1,188 79,959 45.2 2.58 2.0 15-19 years 20.7 10.8 30.6 70 4,309 42.9 5.0 1.0 20-29 years 31.4 24.0 38.8 484 32,068 47.2 3.69 1.7 30-49 years 30.1 24.0 36.1 480 33,111 45.9 3.03 1.4 ≥50 years 18.8 11.2 26.4 154 10,472 39.2 3.79 1.2 Male 30.1 25.0 35.3 1,057 74,842 45.9 2.56 1.8 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 10 484 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 34.4 27.8 40.9 197 14,792 45.8 3.30 1.0 30-49 years 34.7 29.0 40.4 555 38,355 47.6 2.85 1.4 ≥50 years 19.5 14.0 25.1 295 21,212 38.9 2.78 1.2 Percent of women/men in a union who make decisions about credit Female 78.6 73.1 84.2 358 22,896 41.1 2.77 1.3 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 18 892 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 18 892 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 18 892 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 78.5 69.9 87.2 153 10,072 41.2 4.30 1.3 Alone 36.4 29.6 43.2 153 10,072 48.3 3.38 0.9 Jointly 42.1 32.9 51.2 153 10,072 49.5 4.55 1.1 30-49 80.0 72.6 87.3 156 9,964 40.2 3.64 1.1 Alone 46.9 37.6 56.1 156 9,964 50.1 4.60 1.1 Jointly 33.1 24.9 41.3 156 9,964 47.2 4.08 1.1 ≥50 years 76.7 57.9 95.6 31 1,967 43.0 9.07 1.2 Alone 40.7 14.6 66.8 31 1,967 49.9 12.55 1.4 Jointly 36.0 10.1 61.9 31 1,967 48.8 12.46 1.4 Male 85.8 81.3 90.3 342 22,558 35.0 2.25 1.2 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 86.0 76.5 95.5 71 5,081 34.9 4.70 1.1 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 228 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.5. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MC RFSA AREAS Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Alone 44.3 27.5 61.2 71 5,081 50.0 8.34 1.4 Jointly 41.7 28.6 54.8 71 5,081 49.7 6.49 1.1 30-49 88.6 83.2 93.9 202 13,311 31.9 2.69 1.2 Alone 48.6 39.2 58.0 202 13,311 50.1 4.69 1.3 Jointly 40.0 31.1 48.9 202 13,311 49.1 4.44 1.3 ≥50 years 76.4 64.4 88.3 68 4,146 42.8 5.89 1.1 Alone 37.3 22.1 52.5 68 4,146 48.7 7.49 1.3 Jointly 39.1 23.6 54.6 68 4,146 49.2 7.66 1.3 RESILIENCE-RELATED Adaptive Capacity Index 32.8 29.8 35.8 1,902 122,945 16.0 1.50 4.1 Absorptive Capacity Index 32.2 30.1 34.4 1,903 122,996 15.5 1.08 3.0 Transformative Capacity Index 36.6 30.8 42.3 1,906 123,123 21.8 2.87 5.8 Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.8 3.7 3.9 1,693 110,188 1.3 0.06 1.9 Male and female adults 3.8 3.7 3.9 1,168 76,131 1.3 0.06 1.6 Adult female, no adult male 3.8 3.6 4.0 374 24,473 1.1 0.09 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 3.7 3.5 4.0 146 9,304 1.3 0.13 1.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 5 280 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs 6.1 4.1 8.2 1,906 123,123 24.0 1.02 1.9 Savings 4.3 2.6 6.0 1,906 123,123 20.3 0.84 1.8 Male and female adults 4.5 2.9 6.1 1,307 84,842 20.7 0.82 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 2.3 0.8 3.8 428 27,436 15.0 0.74 1.0 Adult male, no adult female 8.0 2.4 13.5 164 10,479 27.2 2.78 1.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 367 ^ ^ ^ Credit (including microfinance) 3.3 2.1 4.5 1,906 123,123 17.9 0.58 1.4 Male and female adults 3.8 2.4 5.3 1,307 84,842 19.2 0.74 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 1.5 0.3 2.7 428 27,436 12.2 0.62 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 3.7 1.0 6.5 164 10,479 19.1 1.37 0.9 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 367 ^ ^ ^ Index of social capital at the household level Overall index 66.2 63.2 69.1 1,906 123,123 25.1 1.49 2.6 Male and female adults 67.3 64.2 70.3 1,307 84,842 24.7 1.50 2.2 Adult female, no adult male 64.7 61.3 68.2 428 27,436 25.5 1.74 1.4 Adult male, no adult female 61.4 56.0 66.7 164 10,479 25.8 2.67 1.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 367 ^ ^ ^ Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 229 Lower Upper Table A1.5. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - MC RFSA AREAS Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Bonding sub-index 66.5 63.4 69.5 1,906 123,123 26.5 1.51 2.5 Male and female adults 67.6 64.4 70.7 1,307 84,842 26.2 1.58 2.2 Adult female, no adult male 64.3 60.2 68.4 428 27,436 27.1 2.06 1.6 Adult male, no adult female 63.3 59.5 67.1 164 10,479 26.0 1.91 0.9 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 367 ^ ^ ^ Bridging sub-index 65.8 62.6 69.1 1,906 123,123 27.7 1.63 2.6 Male and female adults 66.9 63.7 70.2 1,307 84,842 27.0 1.62 2.2 Adult female, no adult male 65.1 61.8 68.4 428 27,436 27.9 1.65 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 59.4 51.2 67.6 164 10,479 31.4 4.09 1.7 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 367 ^ ^ ^ ^ Results not reported when n<30. NA : Not applicable. NOTES: 1 See list of improved post-harvest handling and storage practices promoted by the RFSAs. 2 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. 3 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 230 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the household, based the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) - 30 day recall 93.0 87.9 98.2 948 82,003 24.1 2.5 3.2 Male and female adults 92.1 86.5 97.8 663 57,410 25.6 2.78 2.8 Adult female, no adult male 96.5 92.4 100.6 216 18,746 17.4 2.02 1.7 Adult male, no adult female 90.2 84.4 95.9 68 5,737 26.9 2.84 0.9 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 109 ^ ^ ^ Level of severity Moderate 31.4 29.7 33.1 948 82,003 15.6 0.84 1.7 Severe 61.6 56.3 66.9 948 82,003 22.8 2.6 3.5 Percentage of households with poor food consumption score (FCS) 45.2 37.0 53.4 948 82,003 49.8 4.02 2.5 Male and female adults 44.0 34.1 53.8 663 57,410 49.6 4.84 2.5 Adult female, no adult male 50.1 41.8 58.5 216 18,746 49.9 4.11 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 40.4 25.1 55.6 68 5,737 49.7 7.50 1.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 109 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with borderline FCS 21.8 18.3 25.3 948 82,003 41.3 1.70 1.3 Male and female adults 20.9 17.0 24.8 663 57,410 40.7 1.91 1.2 Adult female, no adult male 22.7 17.6 27.8 216 18,746 41.9 2.51 0.9 Adult male, no adult female 27.9 18.7 37.0 68 5,737 45.4 4.51 0.8 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 109 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with adequate FCS 33.0 26.0 40.0 948 82,003 47.0 3.46 2.3 Male and female adults 35.1 26.1 44.0 663 57,410 47.7 4.40 2.4 Adult female, no adult male 27.1 20.2 34.1 216 18,746 44.4 3.40 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 31.7 19.1 44.3 68 5,737 47.1 6.20 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 109 ^ ^ ^ Mean FCS 35.5 31.2 39.9 948 82,003 21.9 2.15 3.0 Male and female adults 36.9 31.4 42.5 663 57,410 23.0 2.72 3.1 Adult female, no adult male 31.7 28.5 35.0 216 18,746 17.8 1.58 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 34.0 27.6 40.5 68 5,737 21.2 3.16 1.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 109 ^ ^ ^ POVERTY INDICATORS Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy for income) in USG-assisted areas 2010 USD, PPP 2011 1.0 0.6 1.4 948 423,564 2.0 0.2 2.8 Male and female adults 1.0 0.6 1.4 664 337,138 1.9 0.20 2.7 Adult female, no adult male 0.8 0.6 1.0 216 74,563 1.6 0.10 0.9 Adult male, no adult female 2.0 1.2 2.8 67 11,207 6.7 0.39 0.5 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 655 ^ ^ ^ Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less thatn $1.90/day 2011 PPP 86.2 78.7 93.7 948 423,564 34.5 3.67 3.3 Male and female adults 85.5 77.4 93.5 664 337,138 33.1 3.97 3.1 Adult female, no adult male 92.0 87.1 96.9 216 74,563 30.9 2.40 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 68.8 54.7 82.8 67 11,207 75.7 6.91 0.7 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 655 ^ ^ ^ Table A1.6. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - TURKANA Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 231 Lower Upper Table A1.6. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - TURKANA Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percentage shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line 67.2 62.5 71.9 791 365,066 23.8 2.31 2.7 Male and female adults 66.9 61.7 72.2 571 288,114 22.9 2.57 2.7 Adult female, no adult male 69.4 65.7 73.1 187 68,590 21.4 1.84 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 58.3 44.0 72.6 32 7,707 39.6 7.03 1.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 655 ^ ^ ^ WASH INDICATORS Percent of households using basic drinking water services 6.0 3.0 8.9 945 81,695 23.7 1.5 1.9 On premise 1.1 0.1 2.1 945 81,695 10.6 0.5 1.4 ≤ 30-minute roundtrip 4.8 1.9 7.7 945 81,695 21.4 1.4 2.0 Gendered household type Male and female adults 5.2 2.0 8.3 662 57,231 22.2 1.5 1.8 Adult female, no adult male 7.1 3.1 11.0 214 18,618 25.7 1.9 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 10.2 2.9 17.4 68 5,737 30.4 3.5 0.9 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 109 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households in target areas practicing correct use of recommended household water treatment technologies 7.2 4.8 9.6 949 82,007 25.9 1.2 1.4 Chlorination 1.8 0.6 3.0 949 82,007 13.2 0.60 1.4 Flocculant/Disinfectant 1.5 0.3 2.8 949 82,007 12.3 0.63 1.6 Filtration 0.4 0.0 0.9 949 82,007 6.4 0.26 1.2 Solar Disinfection 0.4 0.0 1.1 949 82,007 6.5 0.34 1.6 Boiling 3.3 1.3 5.2 949 82,007 17.8 0.9 1.6 Percentage of households with access to a basic sanitation service 5.9 1.4 10.3 949 82,007 23.6 2.19 2.9 Male and female adults 7.2 1.2 13.3 664 57,408 25.9 2.96 2.9 Adult female, no adult male 3.0 0.3 5.8 216 18,753 17.1 1.36 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 1.8 0.0 4.5 68 5,737 13.5 1.30 0.8 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 109 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households in target areas practicing open defecation 74.7 60.9 88.5 949 82,007 43.5 6.78 4.8 Male and female adults 75.1 61.3 88.9 664 57,408 43.2 6.76 4.0 Adult female, no adult male 78.2 63.6 92.8 216 18,753 41.2 7.18 2.6 Adult male, no adult female 58.3 41.1 75.4 68 5,737 49.9 8.43 1.4 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 109 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises 19.5 0.0 42.5 32 2,662 40.2 10.67 1.5 Male and female adults ^ ^ ^ 26 2,012 ^ ^ ^ Adult female, no adult male ^ ^ ^ 3 300 ^ ^ ^ Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 3 350 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 232 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.6. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - TURKANA Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percent of farmers who used financial services (savings, agricultural credit and/or agricultural insurance) in the past 12 months 3.2 1.2 5.3 537 53,164 17.6 1.01 1.3 Male 3.9 0.7 7.1 296 28,555 19.6 1.55 1.4 Female 2.4 0.0 4.8 241 24,609 15.1 1.16 1.2 Percent of farmers who practiced the value chain interventions promoted by the activity in the past 12 months 8.9 0.4 17.4 115 11,513 28.6 4.13 1.5 Male 3.8 0.0 8.5 60 6,074 19.2 2.30 0.9 Female 14.6 1.6 27.6 55 5,439 35.0 6.38 1.4 Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies Greengrams 82.6 63.6 101.6 30 2,636 38.5 7.77 1.1 Sex Male ^ ^ ^ 11 1,039 ^ ^ ^ Female ^ ^ ^ 19 1,597 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 5 532 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years ^ ^ ^ 25 2,104 ^ ^ ^ Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies 23.5 2.7 44.3 30 2,636 43.1 8.50 1.1 Improved/certified seed 23.5 2.7 44.3 30 2,636 43.1 8.50 1.1 Cultural practices/technologies 28.4 8.6 48.2 30 2,636 45.9 8.09 1.0 Seedling production and transplantation 7.7 0.0 21.1 30 2,636 27.1 5.47 1.1 Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) 20.7 7.5 33.9 30 2,636 41.2 5.40 0.7 Kitchen gardens using sunken pits 0.0 NA NA 30 2,636 0.0 NA 0.0 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies 23.0 3.8 42.1 30 2,636 42.8 7.82 1.0 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) 0.0 NA NA 30 2,636 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of natural barriers/cover crops 6.9 0.0 21.3 30 2,636 25.8 5.90 1.3 Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues 3.3 0.0 9.8 30 2,636 18.2 2.67 0.8 Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) 3.3 0.0 9.8 30 2,636 18.2 2.67 0.8 Zaï pits (pot-holing) 0.0 NA NA 30 2,636 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of minimum tillage practices 9.5 0.0 23.0 30 2,636 29.8 5.55 1.0 Planting nitrogen-fixing trees 3.1 0.0 10.6 30 2,636 17.6 3.07 1.0 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies 27.2 1.6 52.8 30 2,636 45.3 10.46 1.3 Use of organic manure 24.1 2.7 45.5 30 2,636 43.5 8.74 1.1 Soil testing 0.0 NA NA 30 2,636 0.0 NA 0.0 Inoculant 3.1 0.0 10.1 30 2,636 17.6 2.85 0.9 Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 233 Lower Upper Table A1.6. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - TURKANA Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies 2.3 0.0 8.7 30 2,636 15.2 2.63 0.9 Use of rainwater harvesting technologies 2.3 0.0 8.7 30 2,636 15.2 2.63 0.9 Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) 0.0 NA NA 30 2,636 0.0 NA 0.0 Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies 22.4 0.0 48.7 30 2,636 42.4 10.74 1.4 Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes 6.6 0.0 19.7 30 2,636 25.3 5.34 1.2 Use of drought early warning information/systems 15.8 0.0 36.5 30 2,636 37.1 8.45 1.2 Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies 3.3 0.0 9.8 30 2,636 18.2 2.67 0.8 Aflatoxin prevention and control 0.0 NA NA 30 2,636 0.0 NA 0.0 Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) 0.0 NA NA 30 2,636 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of well-equipped food storage structures 3.3 0.0 9.8 30 2,636 18.2 2.67 0.8 Temperature and humidity control 0.0 NA NA 30 2,636 0.0 NA 0.0 Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorghum 68.8 49.4 88.2 78 6,561 46.6 9.05 1.7 Sex Male 68.0 48.8 87.2 38 3,229 47.3 8.95 1.2 Female 69.6 42.2 97.0 40 3,332 46.6 12.31 1.7 Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 14 1,178 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 70.1 47.9 92.4 64 5,383 46.1 10.20 1.8 Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies 24.4 10.4 38.3 78 6,561 43.2 6.51 1.3 Improved/certified seed 24.4 10.4 38.3 78 6,561 43.2 6.51 1.3 Cultural practices/technologies 22.6 7.2 38.0 78 6,561 42.1 7.19 1.5 Seedling production and transplantation 4.0 0.0 8.6 78 6,561 19.8 2.14 1.0 Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) 16.9 1.8 32.0 78 6,561 37.7 7.05 1.7 Kitchen gardens using sunken pits 3.5 0.0 7.0 78 6,561 18.5 1.62 0.8 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies 23.9 10.7 37.1 78 6,561 42.9 6.16 1.3 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) 0.0 NA NA 78 6,561 NA NA 0.0 Use of natural barriers/cover crops 6.6 0.0 13.9 78 6,561 25.0 3.39 1.2 Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues 5.1 0.0 11.4 78 6,561 22.1 2.94 1.2 Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) 2.6 0.0 6.2 78 6,561 16.0 1.68 0.9 Zaï pits (pot-holing) 0.0 NA NA 78 6,561 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of minimum tillage practices 12.2 3.6 20.7 78 6,561 32.9 3.97 1.1 Planting nitrogen-fixing trees 1.2 0.0 3.9 78 6,561 11.1 1.24 1.0 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies 21.3 9.4 33.2 78 6,561 41.2 5.55 1.2 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 234 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.6. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - TURKANA Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Use of organic manure 18.2 7.1 29.3 78 6,561 38.8 5.17 1.2 Soil testing 3.1 0.0 6.2 78 6,561 17.5 1.46 0.7 Inoculant 1.2 0.0 3.7 78 6,561 11.2 1.17 0.9 Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies 2.8 0.0 7.1 78 6,561 16.6 2.01 1.1 Use of rainwater harvesting technologies 1.3 0.0 4.1 78 6,561 11.2 1.32 1.0 Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) 1.5 0.0 4.8 78 6,561 12.4 1.54 1.1 Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies 12.8 0.0 26.3 78 6,561 33.6 6.27 1.6 Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes 7.4 0.0 15.8 78 6,561 26.3 3.92 1.3 Use of drought early warning information/systems 5.4 0.0 11.2 78 6,561 22.8 2.71 1.0 Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies 2.5 0.0 6.3 78 6,561 15.7 1.79 1.0 Aflatoxin prevention and control 0.0 NA NA 78 6,561 0.0 NA 0.0 Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) 1.2 0.0 3.9 78 6,561 11.1 1.24 1.0 Use of well-equipped food storage structures 1.3 0.0 4.1 78 6,561 11.2 1.32 1.0 Temperature and humidity control 0.0 NA NA 78 6,561 0.0 NA 0.0 Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Contract farming NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of training and extension services NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Selling products through community farmer associations NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved bulking NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorting and grading NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Other improved practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cattle (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 50.8 26.8 74.8 39 3,981 50.6 11.11 1.4 Sex Male ^ ^ ^ 20 1,890 ^ ^ ^ Female ^ ^ ^ 19 2,091 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 5 388 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 51.6 26.8 76.4 34 3,593 50.7 11.39 1.3 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 0.0 NA NA 39 3,981 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of livestock health services and products 8.4 0.0 16.9 39 3,981 28.1 3.92 0.9 Use of improved shelters 31.8 10.5 53.0 39 3,981 47.2 9.85 1.3 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 NA NA 39 3,981 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of improved milking techniques 0.0 NA NA 39 3,981 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 4.2 0.0 11.0 39 3,981 20.4 3.15 1.0 Utilization of set grazing areas 2.2 0.0 7.0 39 3,981 14.8 2.24 0.9 Improved fodder production 4.4 0.0 14.0 39 3,981 20.7 4.47 1.3 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species 0.0 NA NA 39 3,981 0.0 NA 0.0 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 235 Lower Upper Table A1.6. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - TURKANA Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Fencing off pasture plots 23.9 0.0 48.8 39 3,981 43.2 11.53 1.7 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 2.0 0.0 6.7 39 3,981 14.3 2.18 1.0 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 0.0 NA NA 39 3,981 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of water pans for livestock 0.0 NA NA 39 3,981 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of sand dams for livestock 0.0 NA NA 39 3,981 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of rock catchments for livestock NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Goats (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 36.6 27.6 45.6 447 45,374 48.2 4.41 1.9 Sex Male 35.3 24.9 45.7 253 24,781 47.9 5.11 1.7 Female 38.2 29.0 47.4 194 20,593 48.7 4.53 1.3 Age 15-29 years 38.3 27.1 49.6 63 6,351 49.0 5.46 0.9 30+ years 36.3 26.8 45.9 384 39,023 48.2 4.69 1.9 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 0.0 NA NA 447 45,374 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of livestock health services and products 4.7 1.4 8.0 447 45,374 21.2 1.62 1.6 Use of improved shelters 20.3 13.8 26.8 447 45,374 40.2 3.19 1.7 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 NA NA 447 45,374 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of improved milking techniques 0.4 0.0 1.2 447 45,374 6.2 0.39 1.3 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 1.8 0.5 3.2 447 45,374 13.5 0.66 1.0 Utilization of set grazing areas 9.9 6.8 13.0 447 45,374 29.9 1.52 1.1 Improved fodder production 0.2 0.0 0.6 447 45,374 4.4 0.20 1.0 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species 0.3 0.0 0.8 447 45,374 5.2 0.26 1.1 Fencing off pasture plots 3.1 0.0 6.4 447 45,374 17.3 1.64 2.0 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 0.9 0.0 2.1 447 45,374 9.7 0.57 1.2 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 0.1 0.0 0.4 447 45,374 3.6 0.13 0.8 Use of water pans for livestock 2.6 0.1 5.2 447 45,374 16.1 1.24 1.6 Use of sand dams for livestock 0.0 NA NA 447 45,374 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of rock catchments for livestock NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Camels (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 23.0 8.5 37.5 55 6,161 42.5 6.73 1.2 Sex Male ^ ^ ^ 27 2,857 ^ ^ ^ Female ^ ^ ^ 28 3,305 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 3 322 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 22.9 8.1 37.7 52 5,839 42.4 6.84 1.2 Use of improved livestock breeds/species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of livestock health services and products NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of improved shelters 19.3 6.5 32.2 55 6,161 39.8 5.95 1.1 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 NA NA 55 6,161 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of improved milking techniques 0.0 NA NA 55 6,161 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 0.0 NA NA 55 6,161 0.0 NA 0.0 Utilization of set grazing areas NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 236 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.6. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - TURKANA Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Improved fodder production NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots 17.3 0.8 33.7 55 6,161 38.1 7.63 1.5 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 1.6 0.0 5.5 55 6,161 12.8 1.77 1.0 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 0.0 NA NA 55 6,161 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of water pans for livestock 1.6 0.0 5.5 55 6,161 12.8 1.77 1.0 Use of sand dams for livestock 0.0 NA NA 55 6,161 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of rock catchments for livestock NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within targeted areas - livestock Cattle (kilogram of offtake per head of cattle per producer) 3.7 0.5 7.0 37 3,486 9.8 1.50 0.9 Sex Male ^ ^ ^ 19 1,622 ^ ^ ^ Female ^ ^ ^ 18 1,864 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 5 357 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 3.1 1.0 5.2 32 3,129 8.3 0.97 0.7 Goats (kilogram of offtake per head of goat per producer) 2.9 2.2 3.6 437 39,899 4.1 0.33 1.7 Sex Male 3.3 2.6 4.1 247 21,662 4.4 0.38 1.4 Female 2.4 1.7 3.0 190 18,236 3.8 0.33 1.2 Age 15-29 years 2.6 1.3 4.0 61 5,476 4.0 0.65 1.3 30+ years 2.9 2.2 3.7 376 34,423 4.2 0.35 1.7 Camels (kilogram of offtake per head of camel per producer) 15.4 7.4 23.5 53 5,287 38.4 3.73 0.7 Sex Male ^ ^ ^ 27 2,561 ^ ^ ^ Female ^ ^ ^ 26 2,727 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 3 289 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 16.3 8.1 24.5 50 4,998 39.3 3.79 0.7 Cow milk (liters per milking cow per day per producer) ^ ^ ^ 2 181 ^ ^ ^ Sex Male ^ ^ ^ 1 117 ^ ^ ^ Female ^ ^ ^ 1 65 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30+ years ^ ^ ^ 2 181 ^ ^ ^ Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 237 Lower Upper Table A1.6. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - TURKANA Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Camel milk (liters per milking camel per day per producer) ^ ^ ^ 13 1,392 ^ ^ ^ Sex Male ^ ^ ^ 5 517 ^ ^ ^ Female ^ ^ ^ 8 875 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30+ years ^ ^ ^ 13 1,392 ^ ^ ^ WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 3.7 1.2 6.2 810 81,828 18.9 1.23 1.8 <19 years 2.5 0.0 5.3 125 12,345 15.7 1.41 1.0 19+ years 3.9 1.0 6.9 685 69,484 19.4 1.44 1.9 Percent of births receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 61.5 54.7 68.4 491 49,088 48.7 3.36 1.5 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 72.2 62.2 82.2 518 51,367 44.9 4.91 2.5 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 26 2,588 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 76.9 64.9 88.9 225 22,471 42.3 5.90 2.1 30-49 years 68.4 57.8 79.1 267 26,307 46.6 5.22 1.8 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methods in the past 12 months 70.6 62.3 78.9 100 10,806 45.8 4.02 0.9 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 1 134 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 1 134 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 1 134 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 67.6 53.7 81.4 59 6,611 47.2 6.63 1.1 Alone 45.8 36.3 55.3 59 6,611 50.3 4.55 0.7 Jointly 21.7 12.6 30.9 59 6,611 41.6 4.39 0.8 30-49 74.5 62.1 87.0 40 4,061 44.1 5.93 0.9 Alone 49.6 30.2 69.1 40 4,061 50.6 9.25 1.2 Jointly 24.9 5.1 44.7 40 4,061 43.8 9.42 1.4 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 22.1 14.1 30.0 437 43,657 41.5 3.91 2.0 Traditional 0.8 0.0 1.8 437 43,657 9.1 0.49 1.1 Modern 21.2 13.3 29.2 437 43,657 40.9 3.92 2.0 CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months 55.1 44.3 66.0 109 9,333 50.0 5.32 1.1 Male 56.2 41.4 70.9 51 4,529 49.9 7.27 1.0 Female 54.2 43.1 65.2 58 4,805 51.5 5.43 0.8 Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) 0.6 0.0 1.7 235 21,797 7.6 0.57 1.2 Male 1.0 0.0 3.1 132 12,004 10.1 1.03 1.2 Female 0.0 NA NA 103 9,793 0.0 NA 0.0 Percent of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 4.1 1.6 6.7 235 21,797 20.0 1.25 1.0 Male 5.5 1.7 9.3 132 12,004 22.7 1.86 0.9 Female 2.5 0.0 6.3 103 9,793 15.2 1.86 1.2 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) who had diarrhea in the prior two weeks 24.1 19.4 28.8 892 79,716 42.8 2.32 1.6 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 238 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.6. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - TURKANA Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Male 27.3 20.5 34.1 461 41,109 44.6 3.33 1.6 Female 20.7 16.1 25.3 431 38,607 40.5 2.27 1.2 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) with diarrhea treated with Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) 79.1 72.0 86.1 210 19,196 40.8 3.47 1.2 Male 83.0 75.7 90.4 124 11,211 37.4 3.63 1.1 Female 73.5 62.1 84.9 86 7,984 43.4 5.62 1.2 GENDER - CASH Percent of women and men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Female 34.1 25.7 42.4 628 58,297 47.4 4.10 2.2 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 28 2,729 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 34.0 24.9 43.1 232 21,888 47.9 4.49 1.4 30-49 years 38.9 28.8 49.0 274 25,194 50.0 4.98 1.6 ≥50 years 25.1 13.7 36.6 94 8,486 44.9 5.63 1.2 Male 46.8 34.7 58.9 582 59,642 49.9 5.94 2.9 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 3 230 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 58.3 44.0 72.5 121 12,827 47.5 7.00 1.6 30-49 years 50.8 38.0 63.6 279 28,011 49.7 6.28 2.1 ≥50 years 33.4 20.0 46.8 179 18,573 45.9 6.60 1.9 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self￾earned cash 79.1 71.0 87.2 179 18,555 40.8 3.95 1.3 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 5 448 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 83.0 72.7 93.2 67 7,128 36.0 5.04 1.1 30-49 years 76.9 66.4 87.3 88 9,170 41.2 5.12 1.2 ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 19 1,808 ^ ^ ^ Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner's self-earned cash 27.3 17.5 37.0 179 18,555 44.7 4.78 1.4 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 5 448 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 30.8 16.6 44.9 67 7,128 44.3 6.94 1.3 30-49 years 26.1 16.7 35.5 88 9,170 42.9 4.63 1.0 ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 19 1,808 ^ ^ ^ Percent of men in union and earning cash who report spouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash 45.6 37.2 54.0 214 23,207 49.9 4.09 1.2 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years 51.4 40.6 62.2 57 6,188 47.5 5.31 0.8 30-49 years 43.3 30.1 56.5 116 12,138 48.3 6.48 1.4 ≥50 years 43.9 23.3 64.5 41 4,881 45.0 10.13 1.4 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 239 Lower Upper Table A1.6. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - TURKANA Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT GENDER - CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men in a union who are members of a community group Female 36.2 27.2 45.3 594 54,047 48.1 4.46 2.3 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 26 2,358 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 39.3 29.3 49.2 219 20,437 48.6 4.90 1.5 30-49 years 34.6 25.2 44.0 261 23,547 48.2 4.63 1.6 ≥50 years 30.4 15.0 45.8 88 7,704 47.2 7.58 1.5 Male 31.4 22.6 40.3 523 49,455 46.5 4.35 2.1 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 2 147 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 39.5 24.1 54.9 109 10,582 47.7 7.58 1.7 30-49 years 31.9 22.6 41.2 256 23,802 46.8 4.57 1.6 ≥50 years 25.2 12.9 37.4 156 14,923 42.8 6.03 1.8 Percent of women/men in a union with access to credit Female 21.8 14.7 28.9 594 54,047 41.3 3.49 2.1 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 26 2,358 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 26.8 15.8 37.7 219 20,437 44.0 5.40 1.8 30-49 years 20.9 13.2 28.6 261 23,547 41.2 3.77 1.5 ≥50 years 15.2 6.1 24.3 88 7,704 36.9 4.48 1.1 Male 22.5 15.2 29.9 523 49,455 41.8 3.62 2.0 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 2 147 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 29.6 21.0 38.3 109 10,582 44.6 4.27 1.0 30-49 years 26.0 17.3 34.7 256 23,802 44.0 4.28 1.6 ≥50 years 12.1 5.9 18.3 156 14,923 32.2 3.04 1.2 Percent of women/men in a union who make decisions about credit Female 75.5 65.4 85.7 114 11,772 43.2 4.95 1.2 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 3 208 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 3 208 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 3 208 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 75.7 60.8 90.6 52 5,471 43.3 7.10 1.2 Alone 36.7 27.1 46.3 52 5,471 48.7 4.56 0.7 Jointly 39.0 25.9 52.2 52 5,471 49.3 6.26 0.9 30-49 78.1 65.4 90.8 47 4,923 41.8 6.05 1.0 Alone 57.1 39.8 74.4 47 4,923 50.0 8.24 1.1 Jointly 21.0 7.4 34.5 47 4,923 41.1 6.46 1.1 ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 12 1,171 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 12 1,171 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 12 1,171 ^ ^ ^ Male 85.9 77.7 94.2 108 11,137 34.9 4.04 1.2 15-19 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Alone NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Jointly NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 81.8 66.8 96.7 32 3,137 39.2 7.07 1.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 240 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.6. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - TURKANA Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Alone 37.6 13.0 62.3 32 3,137 49.2 11.61 1.3 Jointly 44.1 25.9 62.4 32 3,137 50.4 8.61 1.0 30-49 89.5 78.9 100.0 59 6,194 31.0 5.11 1.3 Alone 57.5 37.6 77.3 59 6,194 49.9 9.61 1.5 Jointly 32.0 13.7 50.3 59 6,194 47.1 8.86 1.4 ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 17 1,806 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 17 1,806 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 17 1,806 ^ ^ ^ RESILIENCE-RELATED Adaptive Capacity Index 29.2 25.1 33.4 949 82,093 14.2 2.03 4.4 Absorptive Capacity Index 29.2 26.3 32.1 949 82,093 14.0 1.43 3.1 Transformative Capacity Index 33.4 25.7 41.1 950 82,145 20.1 3.77 5.8 Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.8 3.6 3.9 850 74,283 1.1 0.06 1.6 Male and female adults 3.8 3.6 3.9 596 51,839 1.2 0.07 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 3.7 3.5 4.0 193 17,230 1.1 0.11 1.4 Adult male, no adult female 3.6 3.2 4.0 60 5,104 1.1 0.19 1.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 109 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs 2.9 1.0 4.7 950 82,145 16.7 0.89 1.7 Savings 1.4 0.3 2.5 950 82,145 11.7 0.53 1.4 Male and female adults 1.9 0.4 3.4 664 57,480 13.5 0.73 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 0.4 0.0 1.2 217 18,818 6.2 0.39 0.9 Adult male, no adult female 0.0 68 5,737 0.0 0.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 109 ^ ^ ^ Credit (including microfinance) 2.2 0.9 3.6 950 82,145 14.8 0.67 1.4 Male and female adults 2.8 1.0 4.6 664 57,480 16.4 0.88 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 1.3 0.0 2.9 217 18,818 11.3 0.80 1.0 Adult male, no adult female 0.0 68 5,737 0.0 0.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 109 ^ ^ ^ Index of social capital at the household level Overall index 63.6 59.6 67.6 950 82,145 26.1 1.95 2.3 Male and female adults 64.6 60.7 68.6 664 57,480 25.8 1.93 1.9 Adult female, no adult male 62.9 58.2 67.6 217 18,818 26.1 2.32 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 56.4 49.0 63.9 68 5,737 27.5 3.67 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 109 ^ ^ ^ Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 241 Lower Upper Table A1.6. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - TURKANA Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Bonding sub-index 63.7 59.6 67.7 950 82,145 27.4 2.00 2.2 Male and female adults 64.6 60.4 68.8 664 57,480 27.4 2.06 1.9 Adult female, no adult male 62.0 56.3 67.8 217 18,818 27.8 2.82 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 59.8 54.9 64.6 68 5,737 26.9 2.40 0.7 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 109 ^ ^ ^ Bridging sub-index 63.5 59.2 67.9 950 82,145 29.1 2.15 2.3 Male and female adults 64.6 60.3 68.9 664 57,480 28.3 2.10 1.9 Adult female, no adult male 63.7 59.4 68.1 217 18,818 28.9 2.14 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 53.1 40.5 65.7 68 5,737 35.2 6.18 1.4 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 109 ^ ^ ^ ^ Results not reported when n<30. NA : Not applicable. NOTES: 1 See list of improved post-harvest handling and storage practices promoted by the RFSAs. 2 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. 3 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 242 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the household, based the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) - 30 day recall 81.2 75.8 86.6 951 40,725 35.4 2.6 2.3 Male and female adults 80.7 75.8 85.7 638 27,152 35.6 2.41 1.7 Adult female, no adult male 89.7 83.4 96.0 211 8,611 27.7 3.10 1.6 Adult male, no adult female 67.2 53.0 81.4 96 4,704 40.7 6.99 1.7 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 258 ^ ^ ^ Level of severity Moderate 37.1 34.8 39.4 951 40,725 24.7 1.13 1.4 Severe 44.1 38.6 49.6 951 40,725 31.8 2.7 2.6 Percentage of households with poor food consumption score (FCS) 21.9 16.3 27.5 951 40,725 41.4 2.74 2.0 Male and female adults 20.3 15.3 25.3 638 27,152 40.4 2.46 1.5 Adult female, no adult male 30.6 20.3 40.8 211 8,611 47.2 5.02 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 13.7 6.1 21.2 96 4,704 32.1 3.71 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 258 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with borderline FCS 18.6 14.8 22.5 951 40,725 39.0 1.91 1.5 Male and female adults 19.7 14.8 24.6 638 27,152 39.9 2.39 1.5 Adult female, no adult male 18.9 13.0 24.8 211 8,611 40.1 2.90 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 11.3 0.7 22.0 96 4,704 29.6 5.22 1.7 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 258 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with adequate FCS 59.5 52.3 66.6 951 40,725 49.1 3.52 2.2 Male and female adults 60.0 51.9 68.1 638 27,152 49.2 3.99 2.0 Adult female, no adult male 50.5 39.6 61.5 211 8,611 51.3 5.39 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 75.0 66.3 83.7 96 4,704 40.5 4.28 1.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 258 ^ ^ ^ Mean FCS 48.2 44.4 52.1 951 40,725 21.7 1.90 2.7 Male and female adults 49.0 44.9 53.1 638 27,152 21.8 2.02 2.3 Adult female, no adult male 41.5 37.3 45.7 211 8,611 19.0 2.08 1.6 Adult male, no adult female 57.3 52.5 62.2 96 4,704 21.1 2.40 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 258 ^ ^ ^ POVERTY INDICATORS Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy for income) in USG-assisted areas 2010 USD, PPP 2011 2.0 1.5 2.6 952 193,178 3.5 0.3 2.3 Male and female adults 2.0 1.5 2.5 640 152,632 2.8 0.25 2.3 Adult female, no adult male 1.5 1.0 1.9 210 31,746 2.6 0.23 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 5.3 3.5 7.0 96 8,205 13.7 0.86 0.6 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 594 ^ ^ ^ Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less thatn $1.90/day 2011 PPP 68.3 58.6 78.0 952 193,178 46.6 4.75 3.1 Male and female adults 68.6 58.8 78.3 640 152,632 42.8 4.80 2.8 Adult female, no adult male 75.8 65.2 86.4 210 31,746 49.6 5.21 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 32.4 14.0 50.9 96 8,205 72.1 9.06 1.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 594 ^ ^ ^ Table A1.7. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SAMBURU Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 243 Lower Upper Table A1.7. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SAMBURU Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percentage shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line 55.1 50.1 60.1 602 131,909 23.6 2.47 2.6 Male and female adults 54.5 49.3 59.7 433 104,632 21.1 2.55 2.5 Adult female, no adult male 58.7 52.6 64.9 145 24,056 26.1 3.02 1.4 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 19 2,662 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 5 558 ^ ^ ^ WASH INDICATORS Percent of households using basic drinking water services 8.6 4.3 12.8 946 40,564 28.0 2.1 2.3 On premise 3.4 1.2 5.6 946 40,564 18.2 1.1 1.8 ≤ 30-minute roundtrip 5.1 2.1 8.2 946 40,564 22.1 1.5 2.1 Gendered household type Male and female adults 6.8 3.4 10.1 640 27,207 25.1 1.6 1.6 Adult female, no adult male 10.5 0.0 21.1 208 8,503 30.8 5.2 2.4 Adult male, no adult female 16.0 3.0 29.0 92 4,596 36.9 6.3 1.6 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 258 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households in target areas practicing correct use of recommended household water treatment technologies 17.3 13.3 21.3 959 41,102 37.9 2.0 1.6 Chlorination 5.8 3.6 8.1 959 41,102 23.5 1.12 1.5 Flocculant/Disinfectant 2.0 0.8 3.1 959 41,102 13.8 0.58 1.3 Filtration 2.3 0.8 3.8 959 41,102 15.1 0.75 1.5 Solar Disinfection 0.2 0.0 0.5 959 41,102 4.5 0.14 1.0 Boiling 9.5 6.4 12.7 959 41,102 29.4 1.6 1.6 Percentage of households with access to a basic sanitation service 8.2 4.6 11.7 959 41,102 27.4 1.77 2.0 Male and female adults 7.8 4.7 10.9 644 27,412 26.9 1.50 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 6.8 1.7 11.9 212 8,654 25.9 2.50 1.4 Adult male, no adult female 13.0 0.0 27.6 97 4,778 31.4 7.19 2.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 258 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households in target areas practicing open defecation 48.5 33.0 64.1 959 41,102 50.0 7.64 4.7 Male and female adults 51.4 36.2 66.5 644 27,412 50.2 7.43 3.8 Adult female, no adult male 54.3 37.4 71.2 212 8,654 51.1 8.29 2.4 Adult male, no adult female 19.0 6.2 31.8 97 4,778 36.6 6.29 1.7 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 258 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises 57.6 47.0 68.1 191 9,499 49.6 5.13 1.4 Male and female adults 53.1 41.6 64.5 133 6,512 47.9 5.63 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 63.3 46.1 80.5 30 1,598 43.7 8.44 1.1 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 28 1,389 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 244 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.7. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SAMBURU Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percent of farmers who used financial services (savings, agricultural credit and/or agricultural insurance) in the past 12 months 18.1 12.9 23.2 683 29,693 38.5 2.54 1.7 Male 21.9 15.9 27.8 340 14,677 41.5 2.93 1.3 Female 14.3 8.4 20.3 343 15,015 34.9 2.92 1.5 Percent of farmers who practiced the value chain interventions promoted by the activity in the past 12 months 16.8 9.7 24.0 175 7,765 37.5 3.49 1.2 Male 19.5 9.3 29.7 99 4,355 39.6 5.00 1.3 Female 13.4 5.9 20.9 76 3,409 33.6 3.69 1.0 Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies Greengrams NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sex Male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30+ years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved/certified seed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cultural practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Seedling production and transplantation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Kitchen gardens using sunken pits NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of natural barriers/cover crops NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Zaï pits (pot-holing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of minimum tillage practices NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting nitrogen-fixing trees NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of organic manure NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Soil testing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inoculant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 245 Lower Upper Table A1.7. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SAMBURU Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of rainwater harvesting technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drought early warning information/systems NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Aflatoxin prevention and control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of well-equipped food storage structures NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Temperature and humidity control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorghum NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sex Male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30+ years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved/certified seed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cultural practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Seedling production and transplantation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Kitchen gardens using sunken pits NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of natural barriers/cover crops NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Zaï pits (pot-holing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of minimum tillage practices NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Planting nitrogen-fixing trees NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 246 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.7. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SAMBURU Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Use of organic manure NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Soil testing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Inoculant NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of rainwater harvesting technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drought early warning information/systems NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Aflatoxin prevention and control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of well-equipped food storage structures NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Temperature and humidity control NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Contract farming NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of training and extension services NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Selling products through community farmer associations NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved bulking NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorting and grading NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Other improved practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cattle (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 70.8 60.4 81.1 401 17,035 45.5 5.02 2.2 Sex Male 71.4 60.4 82.4 199 8,364 45.3 5.35 1.7 Female 70.2 59.5 80.8 202 8,671 45.9 5.14 1.6 Age 15-29 years 68.3 55.3 81.2 95 4,157 46.8 6.22 1.3 30+ years 71.6 61.4 81.8 306 12,878 45.2 4.93 1.9 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 4.9 1.8 8.0 401 17,035 21.6 1.49 1.4 Use of livestock health services and products 38.3 30.0 46.5 401 17,035 48.7 3.99 1.6 Use of improved shelters 9.1 5.5 12.8 401 17,035 28.8 1.76 1.2 Use of improved calving techniques 1.4 0.0 3.2 401 17,035 11.9 0.84 1.4 Use of improved milking techniques 1.1 0.0 2.6 401 17,035 10.3 0.73 1.4 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 2.4 0.6 4.3 401 17,035 15.4 0.89 1.2 Utilization of set grazing areas 17.8 10.4 25.2 401 17,035 38.3 3.61 1.9 Improved fodder production 0.7 0.0 1.6 401 17,035 8.5 0.44 1.0 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species 3.2 0.2 6.1 401 17,035 17.5 1.42 1.6 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 247 Lower Upper Table A1.7. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SAMBURU Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Fencing off pasture plots 9.1 2.6 15.6 401 17,035 28.8 3.16 2.2 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 0.7 0.0 1.6 401 17,035 8.1 0.45 1.1 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 2.6 0.0 5.8 401 17,035 15.8 1.59 2.0 Use of water pans for livestock 12.7 8.0 17.4 401 17,035 33.4 2.28 1.4 Use of sand dams for livestock 7.0 3.4 10.6 401 17,035 25.5 1.75 1.4 Use of rock catchments for livestock NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Goats (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 64.6 54.0 75.3 506 21,020 47.9 5.18 2.4 Sex Male 65.6 53.6 77.6 247 10,188 47.6 5.82 1.9 Female 63.7 53.2 74.2 259 10,832 48.2 5.09 1.7 Age 15-29 years 59.7 45.7 73.7 135 5,695 49.2 6.77 1.6 30+ years 66.5 55.7 77.2 371 15,325 47.3 5.21 2.1 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 4.1 1.2 7.1 506 21,020 20.0 1.44 1.6 Use of livestock health services and products 32.6 24.9 40.2 506 21,020 46.9 3.72 1.8 Use of improved shelters 9.0 4.0 14.1 506 21,020 28.7 2.45 1.9 Use of improved calving techniques 0.2 0.0 0.6 506 21,020 4.5 0.21 1.0 Use of improved milking techniques 0.0 NA NA 506 21,020 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 0.4 0.0 1.0 506 21,020 6.3 0.27 1.0 Utilization of set grazing areas 19.9 13.1 26.8 506 21,020 40.0 3.33 1.9 Improved fodder production 0.2 0.0 0.7 506 21,020 4.9 0.24 1.1 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species 2.2 0.4 4.1 506 21,020 14.8 0.88 1.3 Fencing off pasture plots 5.2 1.4 9.1 506 21,020 22.3 1.88 1.9 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 0.8 0.0 1.9 506 21,020 8.8 0.54 1.4 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 2.2 0.0 4.4 506 21,020 14.7 1.05 1.6 Use of water pans for livestock 9.1 4.8 13.5 506 21,020 28.8 2.11 1.6 Use of sand dams for livestock 5.5 2.4 8.5 506 21,020 22.8 1.48 1.5 Use of rock catchments for livestock NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Camels (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 11.3 5.1 17.4 84 3,461 31.8 2.83 0.8 Sex Male 12.8 2.1 23.5 39 1,578 33.8 4.97 0.9 Female 10.0 0.0 20.9 45 1,883 30.3 4.96 1.1 Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 23 943 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 12.5 5.3 19.8 61 2,518 33.4 3.33 0.8 Use of improved livestock breeds/species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of livestock health services and products NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of improved shelters 3.7 0.0 7.4 84 3,461 18.9 1.74 0.8 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 NA NA 84 3,461 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of improved milking techniques 0.0 NA NA 84 3,461 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 0.0 NA NA 84 3,461 0.0 NA 0.0 Utilization of set grazing areas NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 248 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.7. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SAMBURU Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Improved fodder production NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots 0.0 NA NA 84 3,461 0.0 NA 0.0 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 0.0 NA NA 84 3,461 0.0 NA 0.0 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 2.5 0.0 7.8 84 3,461 15.6 2.46 1.4 Use of water pans for livestock 6.6 0.6 12.6 84 3,461 25.0 2.77 1.0 Use of sand dams for livestock 3.9 0.0 8.6 84 3,461 19.6 2.14 1.0 Use of rock catchments for livestock NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within targeted areas - livestock Cattle (kilogram of offtake per head of cattle per producer) 16.9 13.1 20.7 383 15,440 24.3 1.85 1.5 Sex Male 19.3 14.9 23.7 188 7,569 25.2 2.13 1.2 Female 14.6 10.5 18.7 195 7,871 23.3 1.99 1.2 Age 15-29 years 15.6 10.1 21.0 89 3,690 24.5 2.62 1.0 30+ years 17.3 13.6 21.1 294 11,750 24.3 1.83 1.3 Goats (kilogram of offtake per head of goat per producer) 9.5 7.6 11.4 497 18,935 8.8 0.94 2.4 Sex Male 10.0 8.1 12.0 242 9,159 8.2 0.95 1.8 Female 9.0 6.9 11.2 255 9,776 9.4 1.03 1.8 Age 15-29 years 9.1 6.9 11.3 134 5,192 8.4 1.08 1.5 30+ years 9.7 7.6 11.7 363 13,743 9.0 1.01 2.1 Camels (kilogram of offtake per head of camel per producer) 0.9 0.0 2.3 82 3,093 6.4 0.64 0.9 Sex Male 2.1 0.0 5.1 37 1,372 9.5 1.39 0.9 Female 0.0 NA NA 45 1,721 0.0 NA 0.0 Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 23 863 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 1.0 0.0 3.0 59 2,231 7.1 0.91 1.0 Cow milk (liters per milking cow per day per producer) 1.7 1.3 2.2 51 2,033 1.1 0.20 1.3 Sex Male ^ ^ ^ 26 1,066 ^ ^ ^ Female ^ ^ ^ 25 967 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 13 493 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 1.7 1.2 2.3 38 1,540 1.2 0.25 1.3 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 249 Lower Upper Table A1.7. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SAMBURU Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Camel milk (liters per milking camel per day per producer) ^ ^ ^ 24 872 ^ ^ ^ Sex Male ^ ^ ^ 14 503 ^ ^ ^ Female ^ ^ ^ 10 370 ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years ^ ^ ^ 4 125 ^ ^ ^ 30+ years ^ ^ ^ 20 747 ^ ^ ^ WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 9.1 5.0 13.3 857 40,762 28.8 2.03 2.1 <19 years 6.9 0.0 14.0 171 8,088 25.5 3.49 1.8 19+ years 9.7 5.9 13.5 686 32,674 29.6 1.87 1.7 Percent of births receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 54.3 44.4 64.1 462 21,144 49.9 4.83 2.1 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 80.8 72.6 89.0 534 24,846 39.4 4.04 2.4 15-19 years 50.6 30.8 70.5 45 2,122 50.6 9.46 1.3 20-29 years 81.5 71.5 91.4 267 12,405 38.9 4.89 2.1 30-49 years 86.2 80.3 92.1 222 10,319 34.6 2.89 1.2 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methods in the past 12 months 82.1 71.3 92.9 177 8,119 38.4 5.27 1.8 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 4 138 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 4 138 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 4 138 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 77.7 64.2 91.2 88 4,032 41.8 6.57 1.5 Alone 29.4 20.0 38.8 88 4,032 45.8 4.58 0.9 Jointly 48.4 31.2 65.5 88 4,032 50.3 8.35 1.6 30-49 86.0 75.1 96.8 85 3,948 35.0 5.30 1.4 Alone 31.4 20.5 42.4 85 3,948 46.7 5.35 1.1 Jointly 54.5 41.3 67.8 85 3,948 50.1 6.46 1.2 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 35.5 26.9 44.1 458 21,211 47.9 4.24 1.9 Traditional 2.8 0.2 5.5 458 21,211 16.7 1.32 1.7 Modern 34.0 25.8 42.2 458 21,211 47.4 4.04 1.8 CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months 61.2 48.9 73.4 88 3,727 49.0 5.99 1.1 Male 53.9 34.6 73.2 34 1,446 49.3 9.49 1.1 Female 65.8 49.6 82.0 54 2,281 47.0 7.98 1.2 Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) 5.7 2.2 9.3 195 7,911 23.3 1.75 1.0 Male 4.9 0.3 9.6 93 3,768 21.9 2.30 1.0 Female 6.5 1.3 11.7 102 4,143 24.8 2.55 1.0 Percent of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 13.8 7.6 19.9 195 7,911 34.6 3.02 1.2 Male 10.7 4.0 17.5 93 3,768 31.2 3.32 1.0 Female 16.6 6.6 26.5 102 4,143 37.4 4.88 1.3 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) who had diarrhea in the prior two weeks 27.0 21.4 32.5 771 31,853 44.4 2.72 1.7 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 250 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.7. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SAMBURU Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Male 25.1 18.2 31.9 377 15,527 43.4 3.37 1.5 Female 28.8 22.5 35.2 394 16,326 45.3 3.13 1.4 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) with diarrhea treated with Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) 79.3 73.9 84.7 210 8,596 40.6 2.64 0.9 Male 75.6 68.9 82.4 97 3,891 43.5 3.33 0.8 Female 82.3 74.6 89.9 113 4,706 38.1 3.76 1.0 GENDER - CASH Percent of women and men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Female 30.6 23.4 37.9 623 27,101 46.1 3.56 1.9 15-19 years 15.5 0.5 30.5 46 2,025 36.5 7.36 1.4 20-29 years 24.9 18.5 31.3 279 12,203 43.7 3.15 1.2 30-49 years 41.2 30.7 51.6 230 10,055 49.4 5.15 1.6 ≥50 years 28.6 17.6 39.6 68 2,817 47.1 5.41 0.9 Male 50.7 40.3 61.0 603 27,777 50.0 5.08 2.5 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 10 433 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 67.4 55.0 79.8 98 4,620 45.9 6.09 1.3 30-49 years 58.4 47.8 69.0 332 15,612 48.2 5.21 2.0 ≥50 years 25.1 16.6 33.6 163 7,111 44.0 4.18 1.2 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self￾earned cash 87.0 81.1 93.0 171 8,041 33.7 2.90 1.1 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 6 314 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 82.5 70.5 94.6 64 2,880 37.9 5.91 1.2 30-49 years 87.5 81.4 93.5 84 4,041 31.8 2.97 0.9 ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 17 807 ^ ^ ^ Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner's self-earned cash 40.6 30.0 51.2 171 8,041 49.2 5.18 1.4 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 6 314 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 51.0 37.1 64.9 64 2,880 49.9 6.83 1.1 30-49 years 36.5 24.7 48.3 84 4,041 46.3 5.79 1.1 ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 17 807 ^ ^ ^ Percent of men in union and earning cash who report spouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash 49.8 39.5 60.0 271 13,023 50.1 5.02 1.7 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 1 19 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 56.7 44.1 69.4 59 2,878 47.7 6.23 1.0 30-49 years 47.8 35.7 59.8 176 8,576 48.0 5.94 1.6 ≥50 years 48.4 29.2 67.6 35 1,550 50.5 9.44 1.1 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 251 Lower Upper Table A1.7. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SAMBURU Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT GENDER - CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men in a union who are members of a community group Female 49.9 40.8 59.0 594 25,912 50.0 4.46 2.2 15-19 years 37.2 18.4 56.0 44 1,951 49.0 9.2 1.3 20-29 years 48.1 37.7 58.5 265 11,630 50.8 5.12 1.6 30-49 years 54.8 44.7 65.0 219 9,563 50.2 4.97 1.5 ≥50 years 49.2 33.5 64.8 66 2,768 52.1 7.68 1.2 Male 40.5 31.7 49.4 534 25,387 49.1 4.36 2.0 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 8 336 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 43.8 31.6 56.1 88 4,209 48.7 6.02 1.2 30-49 years 40.6 30.2 51.0 299 14,553 47.7 5.11 1.9 ≥50 years 40.3 29.8 50.9 139 6,289 49.3 5.18 1.2 Percent of women/men in a union with access to credit Female 42.9 35.7 50.2 594 25,912 49.5 3.56 1.8 15-19 years 35.1 24.1 46.1 44 1,951 48.4 5.4 0.7 20-29 years 39.6 30.7 48.4 265 11,630 49.7 4.37 1.4 30-49 years 52.7 44.4 61.1 219 9,563 50.3 4.11 1.2 ≥50 years 28.8 14.5 43.0 66 2,768 47.2 7.00 1.2 Male 45.0 38.2 51.8 534 25,387 49.8 3.35 1.6 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 8 336 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 46.2 35.8 56.6 88 4,209 48.9 5.13 1.0 30-49 years 48.9 42.0 55.8 299 14,553 48.6 3.39 1.2 ≥50 years 37.2 27.8 46.6 139 6,289 48.6 4.62 1.1 Percent of women/men in a union who make decisions about credit Female 81.9 77.5 86.3 244 11,124 38.6 2.17 0.9 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 15 685 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 15 685 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 15 685 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 81.8 73.2 90.5 101 4,602 38.8 4.22 1.1 Alone 36.1 25.8 46.5 101 4,602 48.3 5.06 1.1 Jointly 45.7 31.8 59.7 101 4,602 50.1 6.83 1.4 30-49 81.8 73.7 89.9 109 5,041 38.8 3.98 1.1 Alone 36.9 27.6 46.2 109 5,041 48.5 4.55 1.0 Jointly 44.9 35.4 54.5 109 5,041 50.0 4.66 1.0 ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 19 797 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 19 797 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 19 797 ^ ^ ^ Male 85.6 81.5 89.7 234 11,421 35.2 2.02 0.9 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ 1 20 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 92.9 84.6 101.2 39 1,945 26.0 4.02 1.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 252 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Lower Upper Table A1.7. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SAMBURU Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Alone 55.1 34.3 76.0 39 1,945 50.4 10.08 1.2 Jointly 37.8 18.2 57.4 39 1,945 49.1 9.47 1.2 30-49 87.8 83.2 92.4 143 7,117 32.9 2.27 0.8 Alone 40.9 33.5 48.3 143 7,117 49.3 3.62 0.9 Jointly 46.9 38.2 55.6 143 7,117 50.1 4.29 1.0 ≥50 years 72.7 58.1 87.3 51 2,339 45.0 7.10 1.1 Alone 40.1 23.7 56.5 51 2,339 49.5 7.96 1.1 Jointly 32.6 17.4 47.8 51 2,339 47.3 7.38 1.1 RESILIENCE-RELATED Adaptive Capacity Index 40.0 35.9 44.1 953 40,852 16.9 2.01 3.7 Absorptive Capacity Index 38.3 35.2 41.4 954 40,903 16.6 1.53 2.9 Transformative Capacity Index 43.0 34.6 51.5 956 40,979 23.4 4.16 5.5 Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.9 3.6 4.2 843 35,905 1.5 0.13 2.5 Male and female adults 3.9 3.6 4.2 572 24,291 1.5 0.13 2.1 Adult female, no adult male 3.9 3.6 4.2 181 7,242 1.4 0.16 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 3.9 3.6 4.3 86 4,200 1.4 0.17 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 4 171 ^ ^ ^ Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs 12.7 7.8 17.6 956 40,979 33.3 2.42 2.2 Savings 10.1 5.5 14.7 956 40,979 30.1 2.28 2.3 Male and female adults 10.0 5.8 14.3 643 27,362 30.2 2.10 1.8 Adult female, no adult male 6.4 2.1 10.8 211 8,618 25.1 2.13 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 17.6 6.6 28.6 96 4,741 35.5 5.39 1.5 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 258 ^ ^ ^ Credit (including microfinance) 5.4 3.2 7.7 956 40,979 22.7 1.10 1.5 Male and female adults 6.1 3.4 8.8 643 27,362 24.0 1.31 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 2.0 0.1 3.8 211 8,618 14.2 0.91 0.9 Adult male, no adult female 8.2 3.2 13.3 96 4,741 25.6 2.48 0.9 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 258 ^ ^ ^ Index of social capital at the household level Overall index 71.2 67.4 75.0 956 40,979 22.1 1.87 2.6 Male and female adults 72.8 68.6 77.0 643 27,362 21.5 2.07 2.4 Adult female, no adult male 68.8 64.3 73.2 211 8,618 23.9 2.18 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 67.3 61.2 73.5 96 4,741 20.7 3.02 1.4 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 258 ^ ^ ^ Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 253 Lower Upper Table A1.7. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SAMBURU Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Bonding sub-index 72.0 68.3 75.8 956 40,979 23.5 1.84 2.4 Male and female adults 73.8 69.6 78.0 643 27,362 22.8 2.05 2.3 Adult female, no adult male 69.3 64.8 73.8 211 8,618 25.2 2.19 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 67.6 62.0 73.2 96 4,741 22.7 2.74 1.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 258 ^ ^ ^ Bridging sub-index 70.4 66.3 74.6 956 40,979 24.1 2.02 2.6 Male and female adults 71.8 67.3 76.3 643 27,362 23.8 2.20 2.3 Adult female, no adult male 68.2 63.3 73.2 211 8,618 25.6 2.44 1.4 Adult male, no adult female 67.0 59.5 74.6 96 4,741 22.6 3.70 1.6 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 6 258 ^ ^ ^ ^ Results not reported when n<30. NA : Not applicable. NOTES: 1 See list of improved post-harvest handling and storage practices promoted by the RFSAs. 2 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. 3 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 254 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates TOTAL MARSABIT ISIOLO TOTAL TURKANA SAMBURU FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the household, based the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) - 30 day recall 88.4 87.0 90.4 83.0 89.0 93.0 81.2 Male and female adults 87.9 86.9 89.7 83.3 88.3 92.1 80.7 Adult female, no adult male 93.5 90.8 95.0 85.5 94.3 96.5 89.7 Adult male, no adult female 79.5 78.3 85.7 74.5 79.7 90.2 67.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ Level of severity Moderate 37.8 51.5 43.6 53.8 30.1 31.4 37.1 Severe 50.6 35.5 46.8 29.2 58.8 61.6 44.1 Percentage of households with poor food consumption score (FCS) 29.8 11.6 18.3 4.5 37.5 45.2 21.9 Male and female adults 28.0 10.9 16.9 4.2 36.4 44.0 20.3 Adult female, no adult male 37.9 16.5 25.5 6.0 44.0 50.1 30.6 Adult male, no adult female 24.6 9.6 17.9 5.6 28.4 40.4 13.7 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with borderline FCS 19.3 15.9 19.6 11.9 20.8 21.8 18.6 Male and female adults 19.0 15.8 19.7 11.4 20.5 20.9 19.7 Adult female, no adult male 20.3 16.0 19.7 11.8 21.5 22.7 18.9 Adult male, no adult female 19.8 17.1 14.2 18.5 20.4 27.9 11.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with adequate FCS 50.8 72.5 62.1 83.5 41.8 33.0 59.5 Male and female adults 53.0 73.4 63.3 84.4 43.1 35.1 60.0 Adult female, no adult male 41.8 67.5 54.7 82.2 34.5 27.1 50.5 Adult male, no adult female 55.6 73.3 68.0 75.9 51.2 31.7 75.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ Mean FCS 43.8 53.5 47.5 60.0 39.8 35.5 48.2 Male and female adults 45.1 53.9 48.2 60.2 40.8 36.9 49.0 Adult female, no adult male 38.2 50.4 43.5 58.3 34.8 31.7 41.5 Adult male, no adult female 46.9 56.7 48.5 60.6 44.5 34.0 57.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ POVERTY INDICATORS Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy for income) in USG-assisted areas 2010 USD, PPP 2011 1.47 1.75 1.62 1.90 1.34 1.01 2.04 Male and female adults 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.3 1.0 2.0 Adult female, no adult male 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.9 1.0 0.8 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 3.3 2.7 2.1 3.3 3.4 2.0 5.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP 78.1 72.6 77.3 67.5 80.6 86.2 68.3 Male and female adults 77.9 73.4 77.7 68.8 80.2 85.5 68.6 COMBINED MC RFSA AREAS CRS Table A1.8. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SUMMARY Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 255 TOTAL MARSABIT ISIOLO TOTAL TURKANA SAMBURU COMBINED MC RFSA AREAS CRS Table A1.8. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SUMMARY Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Adult female, no adult male 83.4 70.5 78.3 61.1 87.1 92.0 75.8 Adult male, no adult female 51.3 42.2 47.4 37.6 53.4 68.8 32.4 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percentage shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line 58.7 45.8 50.7 39.8 64.0 67.2 55.1 Male and female adults 58.2 46.2 51.2 40.1 63.6 66.9 54.5 Adult female, no adult male 62.2 43.4 47.8 36.6 66.6 69.4 58.7 Adult male, no adult female 52.6 40.7 ^ ^ 54.8 58.3 ^ Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ WASH INDICATORS Percent of households using basic drinking water services 6.2 4.7 5.0 4.5 6.8 6.0 8.6 On premise 1.8 1.6 0.5 2.9 1.9 1.1 3.4 ≤ 30-minute roundtrip 4.4 3.1 4.5 1.6 4.9 4.8 5.1 Gendered household type Male and female adults 5.1 4.0 4.3 3.6 5.7 5.2 6.8 Adult female, no adult male 7.6 5.7 5.8 5.6 8.1 7.1 10.5 Adult male, no adult female 13.1 14.3 16.9 13.0 12.8 10.2 16.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ Percent of households in target areas practicing correct use of recommended household water treatment technologies 10.3 9.5 12.7 6.0 10.6 7.2 17.3 Chlorination 3.6 4.8 6.2 3.4 3.1 1.8 5.8 Flocculant/Disinfectant 1.5 0.9 1.4 0.5 1.7 1.5 2.0 Filtration 1.2 1.5 2.9 0.0 1.1 0.4 2.3 Solar Disinfection 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 Boiling 4.7 3.3 4.1 2.5 5.4 3.3 9.5 Percentage of households with access to a basic sanitation service 7.0 7.8 4.3 11.5 6.6 5.9 8.2 Male and female adults 7.8 8.5 4.7 12.7 7.4 7.2 7.8 Adult female, no adult male 4.5 5.3 3.3 7.6 4.2 3.0 6.8 Adult male, no adult female 6.4 4.3 0.0 6.3 6.9 1.8 13.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ Percent of households in target areas practicing open defecation 63.3 57.1 79.3 33.5 65.9 74.7 48.5 Male and female adults 64.3 57.7 80.1 33.0 67.4 75.1 51.4 Adult female, no adult male 67.9 58.0 74.7 38.7 70.7 78.2 54.3 Adult male, no adult female 41.4 45.5 80.1 28.8 40.4 58.3 19.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises 45.2 33.6 57.4 17.1 49.2 19.5 57.6 Male and female adults 40.8 28.8 59.2 9.6 45.5 ^ 53.1 Adult female, no adult male 54.3 ^ ^ ^ 58.3 ^ 63.3 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 256 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates TOTAL MARSABIT ISIOLO TOTAL TURKANA SAMBURU COMBINED MC RFSA AREAS CRS Table A1.8. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SUMMARY Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Adult male, no adult female 58.6 ^ ^ ^ 57.6 ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percent of farmers who used financial services (savings, agricultural credit and/or agricultural insurance) in the past 12 months 9.0 10.0 6.0 18.7 8.5 3.2 18.1 Male 10.1 10.3 6.6 16.7 10.0 3.9 21.9 Female 7.6 9.5 5.0 24.1 6.9 2.4 14.3 Percent of farmers who practiced the value chain interventions promoted by the activity in the past 12 months 15.4 20.1 20.4 19.4 12.1 8.9 16.8 Male 15.1 20.1 21.1 17.8 10.3 3.8 19.5 Female 15.9 20.0 18.5 23.9 14.2 14.6 13.4 Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies Greengrams NA NA NA NA NA 82.6 NA Sex Male NA NA NA NA NA ^ NA Female NA NA NA NA NA ^ NA Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA ^ NA 30+ years NA NA NA NA NA ^ NA Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA 23.5 NA Improved/certified seed NA NA NA NA NA 23.5 NA Cultural practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA 28.4 NA Seedling production and transplantation NA NA NA NA NA 7.7 NA Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) NA NA NA NA NA 20.7 NA Kitchen gardens using sunken pits NA NA NA NA NA 0.0 NA Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA 23.0 NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) NA NA NA NA NA 0.0 NA Use of natural barriers/cover crops NA NA NA NA NA 6.9 NA Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues NA NA NA NA NA 3.3 NA Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) NA NA NA NA NA 3.3 NA Zaï pits (pot-holing) NA NA NA NA NA 0.0 NA Use of minimum tillage practices NA NA NA NA NA 9.5 NA Planting nitrogen-fixing trees NA NA NA NA NA 3.1 NA Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 257 TOTAL MARSABIT ISIOLO TOTAL TURKANA SAMBURU COMBINED MC RFSA AREAS CRS Table A1.8. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SUMMARY Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA 27.2 NA Use of organic manure NA NA NA NA NA 24.1 NA Soil testing NA NA NA NA NA 0.0 NA Inoculant NA NA NA NA NA 3.1 NA Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA 2.3 NA Use of rainwater harvesting technologies NA NA NA NA NA 2.3 NA Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) NA NA NA NA NA 0.0 NA Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA 22.4 NA Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes NA NA NA NA NA 6.6 NA Use of drought early warning information/systems NA NA NA NA NA 15.8 NA Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA 3.3 NA Aflatoxin prevention and control NA NA NA NA NA 0.0 NA Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) NA NA NA NA NA 0.0 NA Use of well-equipped food storage structures NA NA NA NA NA 3.3 NA Temperature and humidity control NA NA NA NA NA 0.0 NA Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sorghum NA NA NA NA NA 68.8 NA Sex Male NA NA NA NA NA 68.0 NA Female NA NA NA NA NA 69.6 NA Age 15-29 years NA NA NA NA NA ^ NA 30+ years NA NA NA NA NA 70.1 NA Management practice/technology type Crop genetics practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA 24.4 NA Improved/certified seed NA NA NA NA NA 24.4 NA Cultural practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA 22.6 NA Seedling production and transplantation NA NA NA NA NA 4.0 NA Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) NA NA NA NA NA 16.9 NA Kitchen gardens using sunken pits NA NA NA NA NA 3.5 NA Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA 23.9 NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 258 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates TOTAL MARSABIT ISIOLO TOTAL TURKANA SAMBURU COMBINED MC RFSA AREAS CRS Table A1.8. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SUMMARY Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) NA NA NA NA NA 0.0 NA Use of natural barriers/cover crops NA NA NA NA NA 6.6 NA Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay and other crop residues NA NA NA NA NA 5.1 NA Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) NA NA NA NA NA 2.6 NA Zaï pits (pot-holing) NA NA NA NA NA 0.0 NA Use of minimum tillage practices NA NA NA NA NA 12.2 NA Planting nitrogen-fixing trees NA NA NA NA NA 1.2 NA Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA 21.3 NA Use of organic manure NA NA NA NA NA 18.2 NA Soil testing NA NA NA NA NA 3.1 NA Inoculant NA NA NA NA NA 1.2 NA Improved irrigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA 2.8 NA Use of rainwater harvesting technologies NA NA NA NA NA 1.3 NA Use of flood-based farming technologies (Spate irrigation) NA NA NA NA NA 1.5 NA Improved climate mitigation practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA 12.8 NA Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes NA NA NA NA NA 7.4 NA Use of drought early warning information/systems NA NA NA NA NA 5.4 NA Improved marketing and distribution practices/technologies2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies NA NA NA NA NA 2.5 NA Aflatoxin prevention and control NA NA NA NA NA 0.0 NA Improved storage during transportation (e.g., aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers) NA NA NA NA NA 1.2 NA Use of well-equipped food storage structures NA NA NA NA NA 1.3 NA Temperature and humidity control NA NA NA NA NA 0.0 NA Solar drying for grains and pulses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Improved value-added processing practices/technologies3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cattle (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 59.3 49.6 61.0 26.8 67.0 50.8 70.8 Sex Male 56.3 46.2 58.2 26.9 66.8 ^ 71.4 Female 63.0 55.7 65.0 26.6 67.2 ^ 70.2 Age 15-29 years 63.5 58.5 70.5 ^ 66.2 ^ 68.3 30+ years 58.4 48.2 59.0 28.6 67.2 51.6 71.6 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 2.8 1.3 1.9 0.2 4.0 0.0 4.9 Use of livestock health services and products 23.1 11.1 12.4 8.4 32.6 8.4 38.3 Use of improved shelters 9.2 3.9 5.9 0.0 13.4 31.8 9.1 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 259 TOTAL MARSABIT ISIOLO TOTAL TURKANA SAMBURU COMBINED MC RFSA AREAS CRS Table A1.8. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SUMMARY Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Use of improved calving techniques 1.7 2.4 3.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.4 Use of improved milking techniques 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.1 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 2.6 2.5 3.2 1.0 2.8 4.2 2.4 Utilization of set grazing areas 22.8 32.8 41.3 15.7 14.8 2.2 17.8 Improved fodder production 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 4.4 0.7 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species 1.7 NA NA NA 2.6 0.0 3.2 Fencing off pasture plots 7.2 1.2 1.7 0.0 11.9 23.9 9.1 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 1.3 1.7 2.1 0.8 0.9 2.0 0.7 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 3.8 6.1 9.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.6 Use of water pans for livestock 7.7 4.3 6.2 0.6 10.3 0.0 12.7 Use of sand dams for livestock 4.6 3.2 3.3 3.2 5.6 0.0 7.0 Use of rock catchments for livestock 2.5 3.1 4.7 0.0 NA NA NA Goats (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 48.6 53.8 61.6 33.8 45.5 36.6 64.6 Sex Male 47.4 52.1 60.3 34.6 44.1 35.3 65.6 Female 50.1 56.6 63.4 31.7 47.0 38.2 63.7 Age 15-29 years 52.0 58.6 69.1 26.8 48.4 38.3 59.7 30+ years 47.9 52.9 60.0 34.9 44.8 36.3 66.5 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 1.4 1.5 1.9 0.3 1.3 0.0 4.1 Use of livestock health services and products 12.8 11.5 9.8 16.1 13.5 4.7 32.6 Use of improved shelters 12.4 5.2 6.6 1.6 16.7 20.3 9.0 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 Use of improved milking techniques 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 2.1 3.4 4.0 1.8 1.4 1.8 0.4 Utilization of set grazing areas 19.9 31.5 38.9 12.5 13.1 9.9 19.9 Improved fodder production 0.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species 1.1 NA NA NA 0.9 0.3 2.2 Fencing off pasture plots 3.2 2.3 2.8 0.7 3.8 3.1 5.2 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 1.3 1.9 2.3 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.8 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 2.9 6.3 8.6 0.5 0.8 0.1 2.2 Use of water pans for livestock 5.4 6.5 7.1 4.7 4.7 2.6 9.1 Use of sand dams for livestock 3.0 5.1 4.2 7.5 1.7 0.0 5.5 Use of rock catchments for livestock 2.0 2.4 3.3 0.0 NA NA NA Camels (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 43.0 54.0 56.5 16.1 18.8 23.0 11.3 Sex Male 43.1 50.8 53.4 14.4 19.7 ^ 12.8 Female 42.8 59.7 62.0 ^ 18.0 ^ 10.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 260 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates TOTAL MARSABIT ISIOLO TOTAL TURKANA SAMBURU COMBINED MC RFSA AREAS CRS Table A1.8. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SUMMARY Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Age 15-29 years 45.7 61.1 64.9 ^ ^ ^ ^ 30+ years 42.5 53.0 55.3 18.4 19.8 22.9 12.5 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.0 NA NA NA Use of livestock health services and products 11.3 8.4 8.5 6.3 NA NA NA Use of improved shelters 7.9 5.2 5.5 0.0 13.7 19.3 3.7 Use of improved calving techniques 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Use of improved milking techniques 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 1.9 2.8 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Utilization of set grazing areas 27.5 35.6 37.0 14.5 NA NA NA Improved fodder production 0.5 0.8 0.7 1.6 NA NA NA Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species 0.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA Fencing off pasture plots 4.7 1.8 1.9 0.0 11.0 17.3 0.0 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.0 1.0 1.6 0.0 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 5.8 8.0 8.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.5 Use of water pans for livestock 5.5 6.5 6.9 0.0 3.4 1.6 6.6 Use of sand dams for livestock 2.8 3.5 3.7 0.0 1.4 0.0 3.9 Use of rock catchments for livestock 3.0 2.8 2.9 0.0 NA NA NA Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within targeted areas - livestock Cattle (kilogram of offtake per head of cattle per producer) 14.6 14.8 15.3 13.9 14.5 3.7 16.9 Sex Male 16.2 15.7 16.8 14.1 16.8 ^ 19.3 Female 12.6 13.2 13.2 13.2 12.3 ^ 14.6 Age 15-29 years 14.9 14.6 14.9 ^ 15.1 ^ 15.6 30+ years 14.6 14.9 15.4 14.0 14.3 3.1 17.3 Goats (kilogram of offtake per head of goat per producer) 6.1 7.9 7.7 8.4 5.0 2.9 9.5 Sex Male 6.5 8.2 8.3 8.0 5.3 3.3 10.0 Female 5.6 7.5 6.9 9.3 4.7 2.4 9.0 Age 15-29 years 6.3 7.2 7.6 6.1 5.8 2.6 9.1 30+ years 6.1 8.0 7.7 8.7 4.9 2.9 9.7 Camels (kilogram of offtake per head of camel per producer) 13.2 14.6 15.3 4.2 10.1 15.4 0.9 Sex Male 12.9 14.3 15.1 4.3 8.9 ^ 2.1 Female 13.5 15.1 15.8 ^ 11.1 ^ 0.0 Age Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 261 TOTAL MARSABIT ISIOLO TOTAL TURKANA SAMBURU COMBINED MC RFSA AREAS CRS Table A1.8. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SUMMARY Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] 15-29 years 9.0 12.9 13.7 ^ NA ^ ^ 30+ years 13.8 14.9 15.6 4.8 11.6 16.3 1.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 262 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates TOTAL MARSABIT ISIOLO TOTAL TURKANA SAMBURU COMBINED MC RFSA AREAS CRS Table A1.8. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SUMMARY Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Cow milk (liters per milking cow per day per producer) 1.4 1.0 1.0 ^ 1.8 ^ 1.7 Sex Male 1.3 0.9 1.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Female 1.6 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years NA ^ ^ ^ ^ NA ^ 30+ years 1.4 0.9 1.0 ^ 1.9 ^ 1.7 Camel milk (liters per milking camel per day per producer) 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.9 ^ ^ Sex Male 1.4 1.2 1.2 ^ ^ ^ ^ Female 1.4 1.3 1.2 ^ ^ ^ ^ Age 15-29 years 1.5 1.4 ^ ^ ^ NA ^ 30+ years 1.4 1.2 1.2 ^ 1.8 ^ ^ WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 6.1 7.4 2.6 12.4 5.5 3.7 9.1 <19 years 5.3 7.0 3.2 10.1 4.2 2.5 6.9 19+ years 6.3 7.6 2.5 13.1 5.8 3.9 9.7 Percent of births receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 60.4 62.8 56.2 70.6 59.3 61.5 54.3 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 75.2 75.8 63.7 90.4 75.0 72.2 80.8 15-19 years 59.8 58.2 46.7 78.4 60.7 ^ 50.6 20-29 years 77.4 74.7 62.0 89.7 78.5 76.9 81.5 30-49 years 75.3 78.9 67.7 92.1 73.4 68.4 86.2 months 77.6 83.9 80.3 85.2 75.5 70.6 82.1 15-19 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 20-29 73.7 81.9 75.9 84.5 71.4 67.6 77.7 Alone 33.7 12.4 18.7 9.6 39.6 45.8 29.4 Jointly 40.0 69.6 57.1 74.9 31.8 21.7 48.4 30-49 81.4 84.7 ^ 85.1 80.2 74.5 86.0 Alone 36.1 24.3 ^ 21.4 40.6 49.6 31.4 Jointly 45.3 60.3 ^ 63.7 39.5 24.9 54.5 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 25.0 21.8 14.7 30.3 26.4 22.1 35.5 Traditional 2.5 4.7 6.5 2.4 1.5 0.8 2.8 Modern 23.0 17.8 9.1 28.1 25.4 21.2 34.0 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 263 TOTAL MARSABIT ISIOLO TOTAL TURKANA SAMBURU COMBINED MC RFSA AREAS CRS Table A1.8. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SUMMARY Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months 55.7 52.0 46.8 57.3 56.9 55.1 61.2 Male 53.8 48.9 45.3 52.9 55.6 56.2 53.9 Female 57.5 55.7 48.7 62.0 57.9 54.2 65.8 Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) 2.4 3.5 1.3 6.0 2.0 0.6 5.7 Male 2.4 3.3 1.2 6.1 2.0 1.0 4.9 Female 2.4 3.6 1.5 5.9 1.9 0.0 6.5 Percent of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 7.1 7.8 5.0 11.2 6.7 4.1 13.8 Male 7.1 8.1 5.2 11.8 6.7 5.5 10.7 Female 6.9 7.5 4.7 10.5 6.7 2.5 16.6 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) who had diarrhea in the prior two weeks 23.5 20.1 24.7 14.7 24.9 24.1 27.0 Male 24.6 19.9 24.6 14.4 26.7 27.3 25.1 Female 22.3 20.2 24.9 14.9 23.1 20.7 28.8 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) with diarrhea treated with Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) 80.9 85.9 87.8 82.2 79.1 79.1 79.3 Male 82.5 86.6 87.9 83.9 81.1 83.0 75.6 Female 79.0 85.2 87.7 80.4 76.8 73.5 82.3 GENDER - CASH Percent of women and men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Female 25.2 9.5 6.9 12.4 33.0 34.1 30.6 15-19 years 12.3 3.7 6.0 0.0 17.1 ^ 15.5 20-29 years 23.5 6.5 6.1 6.9 30.8 34.0 24.9 30-49 years 30.3 13.6 8.2 19.4 39.5 38.9 41.2 ≥50 years 19.0 6.0 4.9 7.1 26.0 25.1 28.6 Male 42.5 30.7 20.6 42.6 48.0 46.8 50.7 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 56.8 40.3 31.8 45.9 60.7 58.3 67.4 30-49 years 48.2 37.6 26.0 51.8 53.5 50.8 58.4 ≥50 years 26.3 17.8 11.2 26.5 31.1 33.4 25.1 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self￾earned cash 82.0 85.8 85.6 85.9 81.5 79.1 87.0 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 82.5 78.9 ^ ^ 82.9 83.0 82.5 30-49 years 81.4 88.4 ^ 86.3 80.1 76.9 87.5 ≥50 years 82.1 ^ ^ ^ 81.0 ^ ^ Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner's self-earned cash 32.9 45.0 37.9 49.4 31.3 27.3 40.6 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 37.4 46.4 ^ ^ 36.6 30.8 51.0 30-49 years 32.2 48.2 ^ 49.7 29.3 26.1 36.5 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 264 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates TOTAL MARSABIT ISIOLO TOTAL TURKANA SAMBURU COMBINED MC RFSA AREAS CRS Table A1.8. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SUMMARY Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] ≥50 years 20.6 ^ ^ ^ 19.9 ^ ^ Percent of men in union and earning cash who report spouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash 48.9 54.5 45.5 59.3 47.1 45.6 49.8 15-19 years ^ ^ NA ^ ^ NA ^ 20-29 years 53.8 58.0 ^ 61.9 53.1 51.4 56.7 30-49 years 47.2 52.7 45.0 57.0 45.2 43.3 47.8 ≥50 years 48.8 59.0 45.5 66.4 45.0 43.9 48.4 GENDER - CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men in a union who are members of a community group Female 38.4 33.7 32.5 35.1 40.7 36.2 49.9 15-19 years 36.8 28.0 29.2 25.9 41.7 ^ 37.2 20-29 years 39.9 33.8 28.5 39.8 42.5 39.3 48.1 30-49 years 38.7 35.3 34.6 36.2 40.4 34.6 54.8 ≥50 years 33.8 30.9 37.6 23.9 35.4 30.4 49.2 Male 32.4 28.2 22.8 34.3 34.5 31.4 40.5 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 38.0 27.2 30.1 25.4 40.7 39.5 43.8 30-49 years 32.8 28.2 20.0 37.9 35.2 31.9 40.6 ≥50 years 29.3 28.6 25.7 32.1 29.6 25.2 40.3 Percent of women/men in a union with access to credit Female 31.2 36.4 38.4 34.1 28.6 21.8 42.9 15-19 years 21.3 22.4 22.9 21.5 20.7 ^ 35.1 20-29 years 33.5 38.6 39.1 38.1 31.4 26.8 39.6 30-49 years 32.7 37.5 39.8 35.0 30.1 20.9 52.7 ≥50 years 23.7 33.2 40.1 26.0 18.8 15.2 28.8 Male 31.9 35.4 33.9 37.1 30.1 22.5 45.0 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 35.0 37.4 30.8 41.5 34.4 29.6 46.2 30-49 years 35.3 36.4 33.5 39.8 34.7 26.0 48.9 ≥50 years 25.0 33.6 35.8 30.8 19.5 12.1 37.2 Percent of women/men in a union who make decisions about credit 0.0 Female 77.5 75.6 72.6 79.5 78.6 75.5 81.9 15-19 64.8 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Alone 18.5 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Jointly 46.3 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 20-29 78.2 77.6 76.3 79.1 78.5 75.7 81.8 Alone 34.5 30.6 44.6 14.0 36.4 36.7 36.1 Jointly 43.7 47.0 31.6 65.2 42.1 39.0 45.7 30-49 78.3 75.8 73.1 79.3 80.0 78.1 81.8 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 265 TOTAL MARSABIT ISIOLO TOTAL TURKANA SAMBURU COMBINED MC RFSA AREAS CRS Table A1.8. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SUMMARY Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Alone 41.8 34.1 44.6 21.1 46.9 57.1 36.9 Jointly 36.5 41.7 28.5 58.2 33.1 21.0 44.9 ≥50 years 75.5 74.3 68.3 ^ 76.7 ^ ^ Alone 37.6 34.2 49.1 ^ 40.7 ^ ^ Jointly 38.0 40.1 19.2 ^ 36.0 ^ ^ Male 81.7 74.9 65.3 84.9 85.8 85.9 85.6 15-19 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ NA ^ Alone ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ NA ^ Jointly ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ NA ^ 20-29 83.6 74.9 ^ 77.3 86.0 81.8 92.9 Alone 43.4 40.1 ^ 35.5 44.3 37.6 55.1 Jointly 40.2 34.8 ^ 41.9 41.7 44.1 37.8 30-49 85.5 80.1 72.9 87.3 88.6 89.5 87.8 Alone 43.2 33.6 36.0 31.2 48.6 57.5 40.9 Jointly 42.3 46.5 36.9 56.0 40.0 32.0 46.9 ≥50 years 71.4 66.8 54.7 83.7 76.4 ^ 72.7 Alone 29.4 22.1 23.2 20.6 37.3 ^ 40.1 Jointly 42.0 44.7 31.6 63.1 39.1 ^ 32.6 RESILIENCE-RELATED Adaptive Capacity Index 33.2 34.1 30.8 37.6 32.8 29.2 40.0 Absorptive Capacity Index 33.9 37.8 33.0 42.9 32.2 29.2 38.3 Transformative Capacity Index 37.3 39.0 28.3 50.4 36.6 33.4 43.0 Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.8 3.8 3.9 Male and female adults 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.8 3.8 3.9 Adult female, no adult male 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.3 3.8 3.7 3.9 Adult male, no adult female 3.7 3.8 ^ 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.9 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs 5.6 4.3 2.8 5.9 6.1 2.9 12.7 Savings 3.9 3.0 0.6 5.6 4.3 1.4 10.1 Male and female adults 4.0 2.8 0.5 5.4 4.5 1.9 10.0 Adult female, no adult male 2.7 4.3 1.1 7.9 2.3 0.4 6.4 Adult male, no adult female 6.9 2.4 0.0 3.6 8.0 0.0 17.6 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 266 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates TOTAL MARSABIT ISIOLO TOTAL TURKANA SAMBURU COMBINED MC RFSA AREAS CRS Table A1.8. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicators - SUMMARY Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Credit (including microfinance) 3.0 2.2 2.3 2.1 3.3 2.2 5.4 Male and female adults 3.3 2.1 2.3 2.0 3.8 2.8 6.1 Adult female, no adult male 1.7 2.4 2.3 2.5 1.5 1.3 2.0 Adult male, no adult female 3.4 2.3 2.1 2.4 3.7 0.0 8.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ Index of social capital at the household level Overall index 67.0 69.0 68.4 69.7 66.2 63.6 71.2 Male and female adults 67.9 69.1 68.3 70.1 67.3 64.6 72.8 Adult female, no adult male 65.6 68.6 69.6 67.6 64.7 62.9 68.8 Adult male, no adult female 62.7 68.4 66.4 69.3 61.4 56.4 67.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ Bonding sub-index 67.5 70.1 70.2 70.0 66.5 63.7 72.0 Male and female adults 68.5 70.3 70.2 70.5 67.6 64.6 73.8 Adult female, no adult male 65.6 70.1 70.9 69.3 64.3 62.0 69.3 Adult male, no adult female 64.0 66.6 67.7 66.1 63.3 59.8 67.6 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ Bridging sub-index 66.5 68.0 66.7 69.4 65.8 63.5 70.4 Male and female adults 67.3 68.0 66.4 69.8 66.9 64.6 71.8 Adult female, no adult male 65.6 67.1 68.3 65.9 65.1 63.7 68.2 Adult male, no adult female 61.5 70.1 65.2 72.5 59.4 53.1 67.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ NA ^ ^ ^ ^ Results not reported when n<30. NA : Not applicable. NOTES: 1 See list of improved post-harvest handling and storage practices promoted by the RFSAs. 2 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. 3 Included in the calculation of the indicator on the percent of farmers who practiced the promoted value chain interventions. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 267 Table A2.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the household, based the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) - 30 day recall 90.4 83.0 -7.4 0.018 979 995 26,455 24,866 Male and female adults 89.7 83.3 -6.4 0.051 792 758 21,460 19,534 Adult female, no adult male 95.0 85.5 -9.5 0.005 154 151 4,133 3,598 Adult male, no adult female 85.7 74.5 -11.2 0.385 32 86 843 1,734 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 Level of severity Moderate 43.6 53.8 10.1 0.000 979 995 26,455 24,866 Male and female adults 44.3 55.0 10.7 0.000 792 758 21,460 19,534 Adult female, no adult male 40.3 52.7 12.4 0.001 154 151 4,133 3,598 Adult male, no adult female 42.8 42.3 -0.5 0.954 32 86 843 1,734 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 Severe 46.8 29.2 -17.5 0.000 979 995 26,455 24,866 Male and female adults 45.4 28.3 -17.1 0.000 792 758 21,460 19,534 Adult female, no adult male 54.7 32.8 -21.8 0.000 154 151 4,133 3,598 Adult male, no adult female 42.9 32.2 -10.7 0.275 32 86 843 1,734 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 Percentage of households with poor food consumption score (FCS) 18.3 4.5 -13.8 0.000 981 995 26,493 24,866 Male and female adults 16.9 4.2 -12.8 0.000 794 758 21,498 19,534 Adult female, no adult male 25.5 6.0 -19.5 0.007 154 151 4,133 3,598 Adult male, no adult female 17.9 5.6 -12.3 0.135 32 86 843 1,734 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 Percentage of households with borderline FCS 19.6 11.9 -7.7 0.001 981 995 26,493 24,866 Male and female adults 19.7 11.4 -8.3 0.000 794 758 21,498 19,534 Adult female, no adult male 19.7 11.8 -7.9 0.089 154 151 4,133 3,598 Adult male, no adult female 14.2 18.5 4.3 0.621 32 86 843 1,734 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 Percentage of households with adequate FCS 62.1 83.5 21.4 0.000 981 995 26,493 24,866 Male and female adults 63.3 84.4 21.1 0.000 794 758 21,498 19,534 Adult female, no adult male 54.7 82.2 27.5 0.001 154 151 4,133 3,598 Adult male, no adult female 68.0 75.9 8.0 0.502 32 86 843 1,734 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 Mean FCS 47.5 60.0 12.5 0.000 981 995 26,493 24,866 Male and female adults 48.2 60.2 12.0 0.000 794 758 21,498 19,534 Adult female, no adult male 43.5 58.3 14.8 0.000 154 151 4,133 3,598 Adult male, no adult female 48.5 60.6 12.1 0.119 32 86 843 1,734 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 POVERTY INDICATORS Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy for income) in USG-assisted areas 2010 USD, PPP 2011 $1.62 $1.90 $0.28 0.354 972 987 144,070 135,013 Male and female adults $1.64 $1.87 $0.23 0.469 788 754 124,893 118,700 Adult female, no adult male $1.39 $1.86 $0.46 0.046 151 149 16,969 13,903 Adult male, no adult female $2.11 $3.28 $1.17 0.043 32 84 2,168 2,411 Child, no adults ^ 1 40 Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP 77.3 67.5 -9.8 0.065 972 987 144,070 135,013 Male and female adults 77.7 68.8 -8.9 0.109 788 754 124,893 118,700 Indicator Value Difference (Isiolo - Marsabit) P-value Number of records Weighted population 268 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning Annex E2: Tabular Summary of County Comparisons of Baseline Indicator Estimates Table A2.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Indicator Value Difference (Isiolo - Marsabit) P-value Number of records Weighted population Adult female, no adult male 78.3 61.1 -17.2 0.011 151 149 16,969 13,903 Adult male, no adult female 47.4 37.6 -9.8 0.541 32 84 2,168 2,411 Child, no adults ^ 1 40 Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percentage shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line 50.7 39.8 -10.9 0.000 716 592 111,411 91,120 Male and female adults 51.2 40.1 -11.1 0.000 591 496 97,060 81,722 Adult female, no adult male 47.8 36.6 -11.2 0.003 112 78 13,283 8,492 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ 0.966 12 18 1,028 906 Child, no adults ^ 1 40 WASH INDICATORS Percent of households using basic drinking water services 5.0 4.5 -0.5 0.840 981 972 26,500 24,409 On premise 0.5 2.9 2.5 0.004 981 972 26,500 24,409 ≤ 30-minute roundtrip 4.5 1.6 -2.9 0.136 981 972 26,500 24,409 Gendered household type Male and female adults 4.3 3.6 -0.7 0.738 794 750 21,505 19,314 Adult female, no adult male 5.8 5.6 -0.3 0.944 154 147 4,133 3,492 Adult male, no adult female 16.9 13.0 -3.9 0.680 32 75 843 1,603 Child, no adults ^ 1 Percent of households in target areas practicing correct use of recommended household water treatment technologies 12.7 6.0 -6.7 0.024 983 996 26,534 24,902 Chlorination 6.2 3.4 -2.7 0.207 983 996 26,534 24,902 Flocculant/Disinfectant 1.4 0.5 -1.0 0.106 983 996 26,534 24,902 Filtration 2.9 0.0 -2.9 0.004 983 996 26,534 24,902 Solar Disinfection 0.5 0.0 -0.5 0.235 983 996 26,534 24,902 Boiling 4.1 2.5 -1.6 0.205 983 996 26,534 24,902 Percentage of households with access to a basic sanitation service 4.3 11.5 7.2 0.020 983 996 26,534 24,902 Male and female adults 4.7 12.7 8.0 0.034 796 758 21,538 19,554 Adult female, no adult male 3.3 7.6 4.4 0.143 154 151 4,133 3,598 Adult male, no adult female 0.0 6.3 6.3 0.018 32 87 843 1,750 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 Percent of households in target areas practicing open defecation 79.3 33.5 -45.8 0.000 983 996 26,534 24,902 Male and female adults 80.1 33.0 -47.1 0.000 796 758 21,538 19,554 Adult female, no adult male 74.7 38.7 -36.0 0.003 154 151 4,133 3,598 Adult male, no adult female 80.1 28.8 -51.3 0.000 32 87 843 1,750 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises 57.4 17.1 -40.4 0.007 61 102 1,752 2,530 Male and female adults 59.2 9.6 -49.6 0.001 43 67 1,274 2,028 Adult female, no adult male ^ ^ 15 9 415 199 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ 3 26 63 304 Child, no adults Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 269 Table A2.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Indicator Value Difference (Isiolo - Marsabit) P-value Number of records Weighted population AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percent of farmers who used financial services (savings, agricultural credit and/or agricultural insurance) in the past 12 months 6.0 18.7 12.7 0.000 976 514 30,041 13,800 Male 6.6 16.7 10.1 0.000 608 376 18,052 10,139 Female 5.0 24.1 19.1 0.007 368 138 11,989 3,660 Percent of farmers who practiced the value chain interventions promoted by the activity in the past 12 months 20.4 19.4 -1.0 0.893 301 140 9,582 4,196 Male 21.1 17.8 -3.3 0.721 219 107 6,766 3,123 Female 18.5 23.9 5.4 0.551 82 33 2,816 1,073 Cattle (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 61.0 26.8 -34.2 0.000 382 219 11,090 5,515 Sex Male 58.2 26.9 -31.3 0.000 235 156 6,520 4,051 Female 65.0 26.6 -38.4 0.003 147 63 4,571 1,464 Age 15-29 years 70.5 ^ 63 21 1,922 432 30+ years 59.0 28.6 -30.3 0.000 319 198 9,169 5,083 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 1.9 0.2 -1.7 0.008 382 219 11,090 5,515 Use of livestock health services and products 12.4 8.4 -3.9 0.521 382 219 11,090 5,515 Use of improved shelters 5.9 0.0 -5.9 0.000 382 219 11,090 5,515 Use of improved calving techniques 3.5 0.0 -3.5 0.049 382 219 11,090 5,515 Use of improved milking techniques 0.6 0.0 -0.6 0.169 382 219 11,090 5,515 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 3.2 1.0 -2.2 0.240 382 219 11,090 5,515 Utilization of set grazing areas 41.3 15.7 -25.6 0.000 382 219 11,090 5,515 Improved fodder production 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.972 382 219 11,090 5,515 Fencing off pasture plots 1.7 0.0 -1.7 0.037 382 219 11,090 5,515 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 2.1 0.8 -1.4 0.334 382 219 11,090 5,515 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 9.1 0.0 -9.1 0.000 382 219 11,090 5,515 Use of water pans for livestock 6.2 0.6 -5.6 0.003 382 219 11,090 5,515 Use of sand dams for livestock 3.3 3.2 -0.1 0.964 382 219 11,090 5,515 Use of rock catchments for livestock 4.7 0.0 -4.7 0.010 382 219 11,090 5,515 Goats (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 61.6 33.8 -27.8 0.002 915 417 28,429 11,015 Sex Male 60.3 34.6 -25.7 0.002 564 294 16,907 7,864 Female 63.4 31.7 -31.7 0.005 351 123 11,522 3,151 Age 15-29 years 69.1 26.8 -42.3 0.000 154 60 4,816 1,584 30+ years 60.0 34.9 -25.1 0.005 761 357 23,613 9,431 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 1.9 0.3 -1.6 0.071 915 417 28,429 11,015 Use of livestock health services and products 9.8 16.1 6.3 0.509 915 417 28,429 11,015 Use of improved shelters 6.6 1.6 -4.9 0.019 915 417 28,429 11,015 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 0.0 915 417 28,429 11,015 Use of improved milking techniques 0.7 0.0 -0.7 0.072 915 417 28,429 11,015 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 4.0 1.8 -2.2 0.150 915 417 28,429 11,015 Utilization of set grazing areas 38.9 12.5 -26.4 0.000 915 417 28,429 11,015 Improved fodder production 1.6 1.7 0.1 0.923 915 417 28,429 11,015 Fencing off pasture plots 2.8 0.7 -2.1 0.049 915 417 28,429 11,015 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 2.3 0.6 -1.7 0.078 915 417 28,429 11,015 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 270 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Table A2.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Indicator Value Difference (Isiolo - Marsabit) P-value Number of records Weighted population Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 8.6 0.5 -8.1 0.000 915 417 28,429 11,015 Use of water pans for livestock 7.1 4.7 -2.4 0.424 915 417 28,429 11,015 Use of sand dams for livestock 4.2 7.5 3.3 0.221 915 417 28,429 11,015 Use of rock catchments for livestock 3.3 0.0 -3.3 0.003 915 417 28,429 11,015 Camels (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 56.5 16.1 -40.4 0.000 610 59 19,742 1,305 Sex Male 53.4 14.4 -39.0 0.000 400 41 12,537 890 Female 62.0 ^ 210 18 7,206 416 Age 15-29 years 64.9 ^ 80 8 2,596 164 30+ years 55.3 18.4 -36.8 0.000 530 51 17,146 1,141 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 0.7 0.0 -0.7 0.053 610 59 19,742 1,305 Use of livestock health services and products 8.5 6.3 -2.2 0.769 610 59 19,742 1,305 Use of improved shelters 5.5 0.0 -5.5 0.010 610 59 19,742 1,305 Use of improved calving techniques 0.3 0.0 -0.3 0.307 610 59 19,742 1,305 Use of improved milking techniques 0.6 0.0 -0.6 0.067 610 59 19,742 1,305 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 3.0 0.0 -3.0 0.021 610 59 19,742 1,305 Utilization of set grazing areas 37.0 14.5 -22.5 0.008 610 59 19,742 1,305 Improved fodder production 0.7 1.6 0.8 0.571 610 59 19,742 1,305 Fencing off pasture plots 1.9 0.0 -1.9 0.082 610 59 19,742 1,305 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 1.3 0.0 -1.3 0.064 610 59 19,742 1,305 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 8.5 0.0 -8.5 0.000 610 59 19,742 1,305 Use of water pans for livestock 6.9 0.0 -6.9 0.006 610 59 19,742 1,305 Use of sand dams for livestock 3.7 0.0 -3.7 0.026 610 59 19,742 1,305 Use of rock catchments for livestock 2.9 0.0 -2.9 0.008 610 59 19,742 1,305 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within targeted areas - livestock Cattle (kilogram of offtake per head of cattle per producer) 15.3 13.9 -1.4 0.635 351 213 9,845 5,229 Sex Male 16.8 14.1 -2.7 0.448 215 152 5,754 3,870 Female 13.2 13.2 0.0 0.990 136 61 4,091 1,359 Age 15-29 years 14.9 ^ 60 20 1,756 407 30+ years 15.4 14.0 -1.4 0.671 291 193 8,089 4,822 Goats (kilogram of offtake per head of goat per producer) 7.7 8.4 0.6 0.422 897 407 25,115 10,364 Sex Male 8.3 8.0 -0.3 0.720 554 286 14,977 7,360 Female 6.9 9.3 2.4 0.029 343 121 10,138 3,003 Age 15-29 years 7.6 6.1 -1.5 0.191 150 58 4,230 1,447 30+ years 7.7 8.7 1.0 0.239 747 349 20,885 8,916 Camels (kilogram of offtake per head of camel per producer) 15.3 4.2 -11.1 0.000 587 57 17,204 1,226 Sex Male 15.1 4.3 -10.8 0.010 383 40 10,834 843 Female 15.8 ^ 204 17 6,370 382 Age 15-29 years 13.7 ^ 78 7 2,297 139 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 271 Table A2.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Indicator Value Difference (Isiolo - Marsabit) P-value Number of records Weighted population 30+ years 15.6 4.8 -10.8 0.002 509 50 14,907 1,087 Cow milk (liters per milking cow per day per producer) 1.0 ^ 48 20 1,335 577 Sex Male 1.0 ^ 31 18 848 527 Female ^ ^ 17 2 487 50 Age 15-29 years ^ ^ 13 2 303 35 30+ years 1.0 ^ 35 18 1,032 542 Camel milk (liters per milking camel per day per producer) 1.2 1.6 0.4 0.009 216 34 5,955 685 Sex Male 1.2 ^ 149 23 3,947 492 Female 1.2 ^ 67 11 2,007 193 Age 0.0 15-29 years ^ ^ 26 5 679 96 30+ years 1.2 ^ 190 29 5,276 589 WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 2.6 12.4 9.7 0.000 930 1,035 28,612 27,936 <19 years 3.2 10.1 7.0 0.029 197 271 5,548 6,930 19+ years 2.5 13.1 10.6 0.000 733 764 23,065 21,006 Percent of births receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 56.2 70.6 14.4 0.003 553 520 17,095 14,298 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 63.7 90.4 26.7 0.000 628 581 19,368 16,027 15-19 years 46.7 78.4 31.7 0.005 59 34 1,615 910 20-29 years 62.0 89.7 27.7 0.000 245 238 7,562 6,421 30-49 years 67.7 92.1 24.5 0.000 324 309 10,191 8,697 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methods in the past 12 months 80.3 85.2 4.9 0.560 61 162 1,698 4,575 15-19 ^ ^ 4 4 105 109 Alone ^ ^ 4 4 105 109 Jointly ^ ^ 4 4 105 109 20-29 75.9 84.5 8.7 0.448 34 77 891 2,064 Alone 18.7 9.6 -9.1 0.308 34 77 891 2,064 Jointly 57.1 74.9 17.8 0.176 34 77 891 2,064 30-49 ^ 85.1 23 81 702 2,403 Alone ^ 21.4 23 81 702 2,403 Jointly ^ 63.7 23 81 702 2,403 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 14.7 30.3 15.7 0.001 539 507 16,551 13,900 Traditional 6.5 2.4 -4.1 0.096 539 507 16,551 13,900 Modern 9.1 28.1 19.0 0.000 539 507 16,551 13,900 CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months 46.8 57.3 10.5 0.300 75 85 2,102 2,054 Male 45.3 52.9 7.6 0.511 42 46 1,206 1,059 Female 48.7 62.0 13.3 0.383 33 39 896 994 Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) 1.3 6.0 4.7 0.044 255 222 6,970 5,914 Male 1.2 6.1 4.9 0.076 143 108 3,850 2,988 Female 1.5 5.9 4.5 0.209 112 114 3,120 2,926 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 272 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Table A2.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Indicator Value Difference (Isiolo - Marsabit) P-value Number of records Weighted population Percent of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 5.0 11.2 6.2 0.090 255 222 6,970 5,914 Male 5.2 11.8 6.6 0.091 143 108 3,850 2,988 Female 4.7 10.5 5.8 0.265 112 114 3,120 2,926 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) who had diarrhea in the prior two weeks 24.7 14.7 -10.1 0.020 911 824 25,257 21,590 Male 24.6 14.4 -10.1 0.034 488 426 13,368 11,231 Female 24.9 14.9 -10.0 0.048 423 398 11,890 10,360 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) with diarrhea treated with Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) 87.8 82.2 -5.6 0.249 249 119 6,245 3,163 Male 87.9 83.9 -4.0 0.576 130 62 3,283 1,622 Female 87.7 80.4 -7.3 0.276 119 57 2,962 1,541 GENDER - CASH Percent of women and men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Female 6.9 12.4 5.5 0.051 764 704 22,390 20,371 15-19 years 6.0 0.0 -6.0 0.082 63 36 1,634 1,002 20-29 years 6.1 6.9 0.9 0.754 261 241 7,630 6,873 30-49 years 8.2 19.4 11.1 0.014 332 320 10,026 9,462 ≥50 years 4.9 7.1 2.2 0.507 108 107 3,099 3,033 Male 20.6 42.6 21.9 0.000 745 698 22,190 18,820 15-19 years ^ ^ 8 2 241 54 20-29 years 31.8 45.9 14.1 0.248 62 100 1,614 2,466 30-49 years 26.0 51.8 25.9 0.000 398 362 12,135 9,959 ≥50 years 11.2 26.5 15.3 0.000 277 234 8,201 6,342 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash 85.6 85.9 0.3 0.967 53 74 1,385 2,289 15-19 years ^ 3 98 20-29 years ^ ^ 19 15 464 427 30-49 years ^ 86.3 26 54 703 1,720 ≥50 years ^ ^ 5 5 119 143 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner's self-earned cash 37.9 49.4 11.5 0.312 53 74 1,385 2,289 15-19 years ^ 3 98 20-29 years ^ ^ 19 15 464 427 30-49 years ^ 49.7 26 54 703 1,720 ≥50 years ^ ^ 5 5 119 143 Percent of men in union and earning cash who report spouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash 45.5 59.3 13.8 0.036 144 268 4,099 7,623 15-19 years ^ 1 38 20-29 years ^ 61.9 18 40 451 1,038 30-49 years 45.0 57.0 12.1 0.124 95 170 2,789 4,983 ≥50 years 45.5 66.4 20.8 0.141 31 57 859 1,563 GENDER - CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men in a union who are members of a community group Female 32.5 35.1 2.5 0.599 731 692 20,606 18,201 15-19 years 29.2 25.9 -3.4 0.759 60 36 1,496 909 20-29 years 28.5 39.8 11.3 0.052 249 237 7,048 6,128 30-49 years 34.6 36.2 1.5 0.811 321 315 9,289 8,478 ≥50 years 37.6 23.9 -13.7 0.063 101 104 2,773 2,686 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 273 Table A2.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Indicator Value Difference (Isiolo - Marsabit) P-value Number of records Weighted population Male 22.8 34.3 11.5 0.009 653 680 20,064 17,833 15-19 years ^ ^ 8 2 247 53 20-29 years 30.1 25.4 -4.7 0.680 51 97 1,407 2,314 30-49 years 20.0 37.9 17.9 0.001 355 352 11,121 9,422 ≥50 years 25.7 32.1 6.4 0.262 239 229 7,288 6,044 Percent of women/men in a union with access to credit Female 38.4 34.1 -4.3 0.370 731 692 20,606 18,201 15-19 years 22.9 21.5 -1.4 0.890 60 36 1,496 909 20-29 years 39.1 38.1 -1.0 0.886 249 237 7,048 6,128 30-49 years 39.8 35.0 -4.8 0.395 321 315 9,289 8,478 ≥50 years 40.1 26.0 -14.1 0.042 101 104 2,773 2,686 Male 33.9 37.1 3.1 0.530 653 680 20,064 17,833 15-19 years ^ ^ 8 2 247 53 20-29 years 30.8 41.5 10.7 0.214 51 97 1,407 2,314 30-49 years 33.5 39.8 6.3 0.364 355 352 11,121 9,422 ≥50 years 35.8 30.8 -5.0 0.346 239 229 7,288 6,044 Percent of women/men in a union who make decisions about credit Female 72.6 79.5 7.0 0.265 271 230 7,909 6,201 15-19 ^ ^ 14 7 342 196 Alone ^ ^ 14 7 342 196 Jointly ^ ^ 14 7 342 196 20-29 76.3 79.1 2.9 0.707 93 90 2,754 2,335 Alone 44.6 14.0 -30.7 0.000 93 90 2,754 2,335 Jointly 31.6 65.2 33.5 0.001 93 90 2,754 2,335 30-49 73.1 79.3 6.2 0.449 125 105 3,699 2,971 Alone 44.6 21.1 -23.5 0.004 125 105 3,699 2,971 Jointly 28.5 58.2 29.7 0.004 125 105 3,699 2,971 ≥50 years 68.3 ^ 39 28 1,113 700 Alone 49.1 ^ 39 28 1,113 700 Jointly 19.2 ^ 39 28 1,113 700 Male 65.3 84.9 19.6 0.003 221 242 6,811 6,609 15-19 ^ ^ 1 1 43 37 Alone ^ ^ 1 1 43 37 Jointly ^ ^ 1 1 43 37 20-29 ^ 77.3 17 40 434 960 Alone ^ 35.5 17 40 434 960 Jointly ^ 41.9 17 40 434 960 30-49 72.9 87.3 14.3 0.020 119 132 3,722 3,748 Alone 36.0 31.2 -4.8 0.499 119 132 3,722 3,748 Jointly 36.9 56.0 19.1 0.032 119 132 3,722 3,748 ≥50 years 54.7 83.7 29.0 0.001 84 69 2,612 1,864 Alone 23.2 20.6 -2.5 0.751 84 69 2,612 1,864 Jointly 31.6 63.1 31.5 0.002 84 69 2,612 1,864 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 274 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Table A2.1. BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - CRS RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Marsabit Isiolo Indicator Value Difference (Isiolo - Marsabit) P-value Number of records Weighted population RESILIENCE-RELATED Adaptive Capacity Index 30.8 37.6 6.7 0.007 977 996 26,409 24,903 Absorptive Capacity Index 33.0 42.9 9.9 0.000 977 996 26,409 24,903 Transformative Capacity Index 28.3 50.4 22.1 0.000 978 996 26,431 24,903 Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.8 3.4 -0.4 0.003 879 855 23,904 21,247 Male and female adults 3.8 3.4 -0.4 0.003 710 652 19,326 16,588 Adult female, no adult male 3.8 3.3 -0.4 0.040 140 120 3,791 2,974 Adult male, no adult female ^ 3.7 28 83 766 1,685 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs 2.8 5.9 3.1 0.131 978 996 26,431 24,903 Savings 0.6 5.6 5.0 0.010 978 996 26,431 24,903 Male and female adults 0.5 5.4 4.8 0.012 791 759 21,435 19,571 Adult female, no adult male 1.1 7.9 6.8 0.050 154 151 4,133 3,598 Adult male, no adult female 0.0 3.6 3.6 0.262 32 86 843 1,734 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 Credit (including microfinance) 2.3 2.1 -0.2 0.891 978 996 26,431 24,903 Male and female adults 2.3 2.0 -0.3 0.825 791 759 21,435 19,571 Adult female, no adult male 2.3 2.5 0.2 0.937 154 151 4,133 3,598 Adult male, no adult female 2.1 2.4 0.3 0.910 32 86 843 1,734 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 Index of social capital at the household level Overall index 68.4 69.7 1.3 0.545 978 997 26,431 24,918 Male and female adults 68.3 70.1 1.8 0.400 791 759 21,435 19,571 Adult female, no adult male 69.6 67.6 -2.0 0.519 154 151 4,133 3,598 Adult male, no adult female 66.4 69.3 2.9 0.560 32 87 843 1,750 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 Bonding sub-index 70.2 70.0 -0.2 0.917 978 997 26,431 24,918 Male and female adults 70.2 70.5 0.3 0.897 791 759 21,435 19,571 Adult female, no adult male 70.9 69.3 -1.6 0.635 154 151 4,133 3,598 Adult male, no adult female 67.7 66.1 -1.6 0.763 32 87 843 1,750 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 Bridging sub-index 66.7 69.4 2.7 0.206 978 997 26,431 24,918 Male and female adults 66.4 69.8 3.4 0.146 791 759 21,435 19,571 Adult female, no adult male 68.3 65.9 -2.4 0.458 154 151 4,133 3,598 Adult male, no adult female 65.2 72.5 7.3 0.218 32 87 843 1,750 Child, no adults ^ 1 20 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 275 Table A2.2 BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - MC RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the household, based the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) - 30 day recall 93.0 81.2 -11.8 0.002 948 951 82,003 40,725 Male and female adults 92.1 80.7 -11.4 0.003 663 638 57,410 27,152 Adult female, no adult male 96.5 89.7 -6.8 0.071 216 211 18,746 8,611 Adult male, no adult female 90.2 67.2 -23.0 0.003 68 96 5,737 4,704 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 109 258 Level of severity Moderate 31.4 37.1 5.7 0.000 948 951 82,003 40,725 Male and female adults 31.4 37.6 6.2 0.000 663 638 57,410 27,152 Adult female, no adult male 30.7 36.9 6.2 0.012 216 211 18,746 8,611 Adult male, no adult female 33.5 34.8 1.3 0.797 68 96 5,737 4,704 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 109 258 Severe 61.6 44.1 -17.5 0.000 948 951 82,003 40,725 Male and female adults 60.7 43.1 -17.6 0.000 663 638 57,410 27,152 Adult female, no adult male 65.8 52.8 -13.0 0.001 216 211 18,746 8,611 Adult male, no adult female 56.7 32.3 -24.3 0.000 68 96 5,737 4,704 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 109 258 Percentage of households with poor food consumption score (FCS) 45.2 21.9 -23.3 0.000 948 951 82,003 40,725 Male and female adults 44.0 20.3 -23.7 0.000 663 638 57,410 27,152 Adult female, no adult male 50.1 30.6 -19.6 0.004 216 211 18,746 8,611 Adult male, no adult female 40.4 13.7 -26.7 0.002 68 96 5,737 4,704 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 109 258 Percentage of households with borderline FCS 21.8 18.6 -3.2 0.223 948 951 82,003 40,725 Male and female adults 20.9 19.7 -1.2 0.693 663 638 57,410 27,152 Adult female, no adult male 22.7 18.9 -3.8 0.321 216 211 18,746 8,611 Adult male, no adult female 27.9 11.3 -16.5 0.019 68 96 5,737 4,704 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 109 258 Percentage of households with adequate FCS 33.0 59.5 26.5 0.000 948 951 82,003 40,725 Male and female adults 35.1 60.0 24.9 0.000 663 638 57,410 27,152 Adult female, no adult male 27.1 50.5 23.4 0.000 216 211 18,746 8,611 Adult male, no adult female 31.7 75.0 43.2 0.000 68 96 5,737 4,704 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 109 258 Mean FCS 35.5 48.2 12.7 0.000 948 951 82,003 40,725 Male and female adults 36.9 49.0 12.0 0.001 663 638 57,410 27,152 Adult female, no adult male 31.7 41.5 9.8 0.000 216 211 18,746 8,611 Adult male, no adult female 34.0 57.3 23.3 0.000 68 96 5,737 4,704 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 109 258 POVERTY INDICATORS Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy for income) in USG-assisted areas 2010 USD, PPP 2011 $1.01 $2.04 $1.03 0.002 948 952 423,564 193,178 Male and female adults $1.04 $1.99 $0.95 0.004 664 640 337,138 152,632 Adult female, no adult male $0.76 $1.49 $0.73 0.005 216 210 74,563 31,746 Adult male, no adult female $2.00 $5.28 $3.28 0.001 67 96 11,207 8,205 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 655 594 Indicator Value Difference (Samburu - Turkana) Number of records Weighted population P-value IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 276 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Table A2.2 BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - MC RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Indicator Value Difference (Samburu - Turkana) Number of records Weighted population P-value Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP 86.2 68.3 -17.9 0.004 948 952 423,564 193,178 Male and female adults 85.5 68.6 -16.9 0.008 664 640 337,138 152,632 Adult female, no adult male 92.0 75.8 -16.2 0.006 216 210 74,563 31,746 Adult male, no adult female 68.8 32.4 -36.3 0.002 67 96 11,207 8,205 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 655 594 Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percentage shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line 67.2 55.1 -12.1 0.001 791 602 365,066 131,909 Male and female adults 66.9 54.5 -12.4 0.001 571 433 288,114 104,632 Adult female, no adult male 69.4 58.7 -10.7 0.004 187 145 68,590 24,056 Adult male, no adult female 58.3 44.7 -13.6 0.137 32 19 7,707 2,662 Child, no adults 85.3 65.9 -19.3 0.000 1 5 655 558 WASH INDICATORS Percent of households using basic drinking water services 6.0 8.6 2.6 0.309 945 946 81,695 40,564 On premise 1.1 3.4 2.3 0.057 945 946 81,695 40,564 ≤ 30-minute roundtrip 4.8 5.1 0.3 0.874 945 946 81,695 40,564 Gendered household type Male and female adults 5.2 6.8 1.6 0.485 662 640 57,231 27,207 Adult female, no adult male 7.1 10.5 3.5 0.535 214 208 18,618 8,503 Adult male, no adult female 10.2 16.0 5.9 0.417 68 92 5,737 4,596 Child, no adults Percent of households in target areas practicing correct use of recommended household water treatment technologies 7.2 17.3 10.1 0.000 949 959 82,007 41,102 Chlorination 1.8 5.8 4.1 0.002 949 959 82,007 41,102 Flocculant/Disinfectant 1.5 2.0 0.4 0.628 949 959 82,007 41,102 Filtration 0.4 2.3 1.9 0.019 949 959 82,007 41,102 Solar Disinfection 0.4 0.2 -0.2 0.545 949 959 82,007 41,102 Boiling 3.3 9.5 6.3 0.001 949 959 82,007 41,102 Percentage of households with access to a basic sanitation service 5.9 8.2 2.3 0.424 949 959 82,007 41,102 Male and female adults 7.2 7.8 0.6 0.867 664 644 57,408 27,412 Adult female, no adult male 3.0 6.8 3.8 0.187 216 212 18,753 8,654 Adult male, no adult female 1.8 13.0 11.2 0.130 68 97 5,737 4,778 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 109 258 Percent of households in target areas practicing open defecation 74.7 48.5 -26.1 0.013 949 959 82,007 41,102 Male and female adults 75.1 51.4 -23.7 0.021 664 644 57,408 27,412 Adult female, no adult male 78.2 54.3 -23.9 0.033 216 212 18,753 8,654 Adult male, no adult female 58.3 19.0 -39.3 0.000 68 97 5,737 4,778 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 109 258 Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises 19.5 57.6 38.1 0.003 32 191 2,662 9,499 Male and female adults ^ 53.1 26 133 2,012 6,512 Adult female, no adult male ^ 63.3 3 30 300 1,598 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ 3 28 350 1,389 Child, no adults Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 277 Table A2.2 BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - MC RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Indicator Value Difference (Samburu - Turkana) Number of records Weighted population P-value AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percent of farmers who used financial services (savings, agricultural credit and/or agricultural insurance) in the past 12 months 3.2 18.1 14.9 0.000 537 683 53,164 29,693 Male 3.9 21.9 18.0 0.000 296 340 28,555 14,677 Female 2.4 14.3 11.9 0.000 241 343 24,609 15,015 Percent of farmers who practiced the value chain interventions promoted by the activity in the past 12 months 8.9 16.8 7.9 0.150 115 175 11,513 7,765 Male 3.8 19.5 15.7 0.006 60 99 6,074 4,355 Female 14.6 13.4 -1.3 0.865 55 76 5,439 3,409 Cattle (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 50.8 70.8 20.0 0.110 39 401 3,981 17,035 Sex Male ^ 71.4 20 199 1,890 8,364 Female ^ 70.2 19 202 2,091 8,671 Age 15-29 years ^ 68.3 5 95 388 4,157 30+ years 51.6 71.6 20.0 0.116 34 306 3,593 12,878 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 0.0 4.9 4.9 0.002 39 401 3,981 17,035 Use of livestock health services and products 8.4 38.3 29.8 0.000 39 401 3,981 17,035 Use of improved shelters 31.8 9.1 -22.6 0.029 39 401 3,981 17,035 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.098 39 401 3,981 17,035 Use of improved milking techniques 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.153 39 401 3,981 17,035 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 4.2 2.4 -1.8 0.585 39 401 3,981 17,035 Utilization of set grazing areas 2.2 17.8 15.6 0.001 39 401 3,981 17,035 Improved fodder production 4.4 0.7 -3.6 0.423 39 401 3,981 17,035 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species 0.0 3.2 3.2 0.032 39 401 3,981 17,035 Fencing off pasture plots 23.9 9.1 -14.8 0.224 39 401 3,981 17,035 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 2.0 0.7 -1.4 0.539 39 401 3,981 17,035 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 0.0 2.6 2.6 0.114 39 401 3,981 17,035 Use of water pans for livestock 0.0 12.7 12.7 0.000 39 401 3,981 17,035 Use of sand dams for livestock 0.0 7.0 7.0 0.000 39 401 3,981 17,035 Goats (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 36.6 64.6 28.0 0.000 447 506 45,374 21,020 Sex Male 35.3 65.6 30.4 0.000 253 247 24,781 10,188 Female 38.2 63.7 25.5 0.000 194 259 20,593 10,832 Age 15-29 years 38.3 59.7 21.4 0.018 63 135 6,351 5,695 30+ years 36.3 66.5 30.1 0.000 384 371 39,023 15,325 Use of improved livestock breeds/species 0.0 4.1 4.1 0.006 447 506 45,374 21,020 Use of livestock health services and products 4.7 32.6 27.9 0.000 447 506 45,374 21,020 Use of improved shelters 20.3 9.0 -11.2 0.007 447 506 45,374 21,020 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.331 447 506 45,374 21,020 Use of improved milking techniques 0.4 0.0 -0.4 0.334 447 506 45,374 21,020 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 1.8 0.4 -1.4 0.047 447 506 45,374 21,020 Utilization of set grazing areas 9.9 19.9 10.0 0.008 447 506 45,374 21,020 Improved fodder production 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.884 447 506 45,374 21,020 Reseeding of degraded lands with drought resistant grass species 0.3 2.2 2.0 0.036 447 506 45,374 21,020 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 278 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Table A2.2 BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - MC RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Indicator Value Difference (Samburu - Turkana) Number of records Weighted population P-value Fencing off pasture plots 3.1 5.2 2.2 0.391 447 506 45,374 21,020 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 0.9 0.8 -0.2 0.827 447 506 45,374 21,020 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 0.1 2.2 2.1 0.056 447 506 45,374 21,020 Use of water pans for livestock 2.6 9.1 6.5 0.010 447 506 45,374 21,020 Use of sand dams for livestock 0.0 5.5 5.5 0.000 447 506 45,374 21,020 Camels (improved livestock management practices/technologies) 23.0 11.3 -11.7 0.120 55 84 6,161 3,461 Sex Male ^ 12.8 27 39 2,857 1,578 Female ^ 10.0 28 45 3,305 1,883 Age 15-29 years ^ ^ 3 23 322 943 30+ years 22.9 12.5 -10.4 0.185 52 61 5,839 2,518 Use of improved shelters 19.3 3.7 -15.6 0.018 55 84 6,161 3,461 Use of improved calving techniques 0.0 0.0 0.0 55 84 6,161 3,461 Use of improved milking techniques 0.0 0.0 0.0 55 84 6,161 3,461 Use of more nutritious pasture varieties 0.0 0.0 0.0 55 84 6,161 3,461 Fencing off pasture plots 17.3 0.0 -17.3 0.032 55 84 6,161 3,461 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands 1.6 0.0 -1.6 0.364 55 84 6,161 3,461 Use of solarized boreholes for livestock 0.0 2.5 2.5 0.328 55 84 6,161 3,461 Use of water pans for livestock 1.6 6.6 5.0 0.143 55 84 6,161 3,461 Use of sand dams for livestock 0.0 3.9 3.9 0.077 55 84 6,161 3,461 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within targeted areas - livestock Cattle (kilogram of offtake per head of cattle per producer) 3.7 16.9 13.2 0.000 37 383 3,486 15,440 Sex Male ^ 19.3 19 188 1,622 7,569 Female ^ 14.6 18 195 1,864 7,871 Age 15-29 years ^ 15.6 5 89 357 3,690 30+ years 3.1 17.3 14.3 0.000 32 294 3,129 11,750 Goats (kilogram of offtake per head of goat per producer) 2.9 9.5 6.6 0.000 437 497 39,899 18,935 Sex Male 3.3 10.0 6.7 0.000 247 242 21,662 9,159 Female 2.4 9.0 6.7 0.000 190 255 18,236 9,776 Age 15-29 years 2.6 9.1 6.5 0.000 61 134 5,476 5,192 30+ years 2.9 9.7 6.7 0.000 376 363 34,423 13,743 Camels (kilogram of offtake per head of camel per producer) 15.4 0.9 -14.5 0.001 53 82 5,287 3,093 Sex Male ^ 2.1 27 37 2,561 1,372 Female ^ 0.0 26 45 2,727 1,721 Age 15-29 years ^ ^ 3 23 289 863 30+ years 16.3 1.0 -15.3 0.001 50 59 4,998 2,231 Cow milk (liters per milking cow per day per producer) ^ 1.7 2 51 181 2,033 Sex Male ^ ^ 1 26 117 1,066 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 279 Table A2.2 BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - MC RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Indicator Value Difference (Samburu - Turkana) Number of records Weighted population P-value Female ^ ^ 1 25 65 967 Age 15-29 years ^ 13 493 30+ years ^ 1.7 2 38 181 1,540 Camel milk (liters per milking camel per day per producer) ^ ^ 13 24 1,392 872 Sex Male ^ ^ 5 14 517 503 Female ^ ^ 8 10 875 370 Age 15-29 years ^ 4 125 30+ years ^ ^ 13 20 1,392 747 WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 3.7 9.1 5.4 0.026 810 857 81,828 40,762 <19 years 2.5 6.9 4.5 0.240 125 171 12,345 8,088 19+ years 3.9 9.7 5.7 0.018 685 686 69,484 32,674 Percent of births receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 61.5 54.3 -7.3 0.221 491 462 49,088 21,144 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 72.2 80.8 8.6 0.179 518 534 51,367 24,846 15-19 years ^ 50.6 26 45 2,588 2,122 20-29 years 76.9 81.5 4.6 0.550 225 267 22,471 12,405 30-49 years 68.4 86.2 17.7 0.004 267 222 26,307 10,319 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methods in the past 12 months 70.6 82.1 11.5 0.088 100 177 10,806 8,119 15-19 ^ ^ 1 4 134 138 Alone ^ ^ 1 4 134 138 Jointly ^ ^ 1 4 134 138 20-29 67.6 77.7 10.2 0.281 59 88 6,611 4,032 Alone 45.8 29.4 -16.4 0.014 59 88 6,611 4,032 Jointly 21.7 48.4 26.6 0.007 59 88 6,611 4,032 30-49 74.5 86.0 11.4 0.158 40 85 4,061 3,948 Alone 49.6 31.4 -18.2 0.095 40 85 4,061 3,948 Jointly 24.9 54.5 29.6 0.013 40 85 4,061 3,948 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 22.1 35.5 13.4 0.023 437 458 43,657 21,211 Traditional 0.8 2.8 2.0 0.155 437 458 43,657 21,211 Modern 21.2 34.0 12.8 0.026 437 458 43,657 21,211 CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months 55.1 61.2 6.0 0.455 109 88 9,333 3,727 Male 56.2 53.9 -2.3 0.850 51 34 4,529 1,446 Female 54.2 65.8 11.6 0.233 58 54 4,805 2,281 Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) 0.6 5.7 5.2 0.007 235 195 21,797 7,911 Male 1.0 4.9 3.9 0.128 132 93 12,004 3,768 Female 0.0 6.5 6.5 0.013 103 102 9,793 4,143 Percent of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 4.1 13.8 9.6 0.004 235 195 21,797 7,911 Male 5.5 10.7 5.2 0.174 132 93 12,004 3,768 Female 2.5 16.6 14.1 0.009 103 102 9,793 4,143 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) who had diarrhea in the prior two weeks 24.1 27.0 2.9 0.419 892 771 79,716 31,853 Male 27.3 25.1 -2.2 0.642 461 377 41,109 15,527 Female 20.7 28.8 8.1 0.039 431 394 38,607 16,326 Percent of children under five (0-59 months) with diarrhea treated with Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) 79.1 79.3 0.2 0.962 210 210 19,196 8,596 Male 83.0 75.6 -7.4 0.138 124 97 11,211 3,891 Female 73.5 82.3 8.8 0.198 86 113 7,984 4,706 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 280 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Table A2.2 BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - MC RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Indicator Value Difference (Samburu - Turkana) Number of records Weighted population P-value GENDER - CASH Percent of women and men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Female 34.1 30.6 -3.5 0.527 628 623 58,297 27,101 15-19 years ^ 15.5 28 46 2,729 2,025 20-29 years 34.0 24.9 -9.1 0.103 232 279 21,888 12,203 30-49 years 38.9 41.2 2.3 0.752 274 230 25,194 10,055 ≥50 years 25.1 28.6 3.5 0.657 94 68 8,486 2,817 Male 46.8 50.7 3.9 0.622 582 603 59,642 27,777 15-19 years ^ ^ 3 10 230 433 20-29 years 58.3 67.4 9.1 0.330 121 98 12,827 4,620 30-49 years 50.8 58.4 7.6 0.354 279 332 28,011 15,612 ≥50 years 33.4 25.1 -8.3 0.292 179 163 18,573 7,111 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash 79.1 87.0 8.0 0.109 179 171 18,555 8,041 15-19 years ^ ^ 5 6 448 314 20-29 years 83.0 82.5 -0.4 0.954 67 64 7,128 2,880 30-49 years 76.9 87.5 10.6 0.077 88 84 9,170 4,041 ≥50 years ^ ^ 19 17 1,808 807 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner's self-earned cash 27.3 40.6 13.3 0.064 179 171 18,555 8,041 15-19 years ^ ^ 5 6 448 314 20-29 years 30.8 51.0 20.3 0.041 67 64 7,128 2,880 30-49 years 26.1 36.5 10.4 0.167 88 84 9,170 4,041 ≥50 years ^ ^ 19 17 1,808 807 Percent of men in union and earning cash who report spouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash 45.6 49.8 4.2 0.523 214 271 23,207 13,023 15-19 years ^ 1 19 20-29 years 51.4 56.7 5.4 0.514 57 59 6,188 2,878 30-49 years 43.3 47.8 4.4 0.616 116 176 12,138 8,576 ≥50 years 43.9 48.4 4.5 0.745 41 35 4,881 1,550 GENDER - CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men in a union who are members of a community group Female 36.2 49.9 13.6 0.034 594 594 54,047 25,912 15-19 years ^ 37.2 26 44 2,358 1,951 20-29 years 39.3 48.1 8.8 0.217 219 265 20,437 11,630 30-49 years 34.6 54.8 20.2 0.004 261 219 23,547 9,563 ≥50 years 30.4 49.2 18.7 0.087 88 66 7,704 2,768 Male 31.4 40.5 9.1 0.144 523 534 49,455 25,387 15-19 years ^ ^ 2 8 147 336 20-29 years 39.5 43.8 4.3 0.657 109 88 10,582 4,209 30-49 years 31.9 40.6 8.7 0.210 256 299 23,802 14,553 ≥50 years 25.2 40.3 15.2 0.061 156 139 14,923 6,289 Percent of women/men in a union with access to credit Female 21.8 42.9 21.2 0.000 594 594 54,047 25,912 15-19 years ^ 35.1 26 44 2,358 1,951 20-29 years 26.8 39.6 12.8 0.070 219 265 20,437 11,630 30-49 years 20.9 52.7 31.8 0.000 261 219 23,547 9,563 ≥50 years 15.2 28.8 13.6 0.107 88 66 7,704 2,768 Male 22.5 45.0 22.5 0.000 523 534 49,455 25,387 15-19 years ^ ^ 2 8 147 336 20-29 years 29.6 46.2 16.6 0.016 109 88 10,582 4,209 30-49 years 26.0 48.9 22.9 0.000 256 299 23,802 14,553 ≥50 years 12.1 37.2 25.1 0.000 156 139 14,923 6,289 Percent of women/men in a union who make decisions about credit Female 75.5 81.9 6.4 0.243 114 244 11,772 11,124 15-19 ^ ^ 3 15 208 685 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 281 Table A2.2 BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - MC RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Indicator Value Difference (Samburu - Turkana) Number of records Weighted population P-value Alone ^ ^ 3 15 208 685 Jointly ^ ^ 3 15 208 685 20-29 75.7 81.8 6.1 0.464 52 101 5,471 4,602 Alone 36.7 36.1 -0.6 0.932 52 101 5,471 4,602 Jointly 39.0 45.7 6.7 0.474 52 101 5,471 4,602 30-49 78.1 81.8 3.7 0.609 47 109 4,923 5,041 Alone 57.1 36.9 -20.3 0.037 47 109 4,923 5,041 Jointly 21.0 44.9 24.0 0.004 47 109 4,923 5,041 ≥50 years ^ ^ 12 19 1,171 797 Alone ^ ^ 12 19 1,171 797 Jointly ^ ^ 12 19 1,171 797 Male 85.9 85.6 -0.4 0.936 108 234 11,137 11,421 15-19 ^ 1 20 Alone ^ 1 20 Jointly ^ 1 20 20-29 81.8 92.9 11.2 0.178 32 39 3,137 1,945 Alone 37.6 55.1 17.5 0.262 32 39 3,137 1,945 Jointly 44.1 37.8 -6.3 0.623 32 39 3,137 1,945 30-49 89.5 87.8 -1.7 0.764 59 143 6,194 7,117 Alone 57.5 40.9 -16.6 0.112 59 143 6,194 7,117 Jointly 32.0 46.9 14.9 0.136 59 143 6,194 7,117 ≥50 years ^ 72.7 17 51 1,806 2,339 Alone ^ 40.1 17 51 1,806 2,339 Jointly ^ 32.6 17 51 1,806 2,339 RESILIENCE-RELATED Adaptive Capacity Index 29.2 40.0 10.8 0.000 949 953 82,093 40,852 Absorptive Capacity Index 29.2 38.3 9.1 0.000 949 954 82,093 40,903 Transformative Capacity Index 33.4 42.9 9.5 0.096 950 956 82,145 40,979 Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.8 3.9 0.1 0.300 850 843 74,283 35,905 Male and female adults 3.8 3.9 0.1 0.411 596 572 51,839 24,291 Adult female, no adult male 3.7 3.9 0.1 0.461 193 181 17,230 7,242 Adult male, no adult female 3.6 3.9 0.4 0.175 60 86 5,104 4,200 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 4 109 171 Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs 2.9 12.7 9.9 0.000 950 956 82,145 40,979 Savings 1.4 10.1 8.7 0.000 950 956 82,145 40,979 Male and female adults 1.9 10.0 8.2 0.000 664 643 57,480 27,362 Adult female, no adult male 0.4 6.4 6.0 0.007 217 211 18,818 8,618 Adult male, no adult female 0.0 17.6 17.6 0.002 68 96 5,737 4,741 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 109 258 Credit (including microfinance) 2.2 5.4 3.2 0.015 950 956 82,145 40,979 Male and female adults 2.8 6.1 3.3 0.039 664 643 57,480 27,362 Adult female, no adult male 1.3 2.0 0.7 0.590 217 211 18,818 8,618 Adult male, no adult female 0.0 8.2 8.2 0.001 68 96 5,737 4,741 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 109 258 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 282 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Table A2.2 BHA Kenya Baseline Indicator County Estimates and Differences - MC RFSA Areas Indicators, P-value, and Base Population [Kenya, 2021] Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Turkana Samburu Indicator Value Difference (Samburu - Turkana) Number of records Weighted population P-value Index of social capital at the household level Overall index 63.6 71.2 7.6 0.006 950 956 82,145 40,979 Male and female adults 64.6 72.8 8.2 0.005 664 643 57,480 27,362 Adult female, no adult male 62.9 68.8 5.9 0.069 217 211 18,818 8,618 Adult male, no adult female 56.4 67.3 10.9 0.025 68 96 5,737 4,741 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 109 258 Bonding sub-index 63.7 72.0 8.4 0.003 950 956 82,145 40,979 Male and female adults 64.6 73.8 9.2 0.002 664 643 57,480 27,362 Adult female, no adult male 62.0 69.3 7.2 0.047 217 211 18,818 8,618 Adult male, no adult female 59.8 67.6 7.8 0.035 68 96 5,737 4,741 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 109 258 Bridging sub-index 63.5 70.4 6.9 0.023 950 956 82,145 40,979 Male and female adults 64.6 71.8 7.2 0.021 664 643 57,480 27,362 Adult female, no adult male 63.7 68.2 4.5 0.168 217 211 18,818 8,618 Adult male, no adult female 53.1 67.0 14.0 0.057 68 96 5,737 4,741 Child, no adults ^ ^ 1 6 109 258 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 283 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 284 Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates Annex E3: County-level Estimates of Select Indicators from the 2018 PREG II Baseline Survey Table A5c.1 Estimates of Select Indicators from the 2018 PREG II Baseline Survey, by county Marsabit Isiolo Turkana Samburu % N % N % N % N FOOD SECURITY Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the household, based the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) - 12-month recall 85.8 211 62.5 177 94.2 361 58.1 351 Level of severity Severe 79.6 211 54.5 177 91.2 361 47.3 351 Percentage of households consuming HDDS food groups Cereals 82.3 211 78.0 177 90.9 361 85.2 351 Roots and tubers 23.7 211 44.0 177 15.2 361 33.3 351 Vegetables 31.2 211 73.7 177 28.1 361 57.3 351 Fruits 8.2 209 29.8 176 13.2 361 12.3 351 Meat, poultry, offal 11.0 210 27.3 173 35.5 361 26.0 350 Eggs 10.6 210 20.7 177 7.2 360 14.4 348 Fish and seafood 1.3 210 2.9 177 7.7 360 0.6 351 Pulses, legumes, nuts 52.9 209 14.3 177 38.1 361 41.3 351 Milk and milk products 56.7 210 62.2 177 40.9 361 49.0 351 Oil/fats 93.6 210 85.2 177 68.4 361 82.2 348 Sugar/honey 79.2 210 68.4 177 67.5 361 81.5 351 Miscellaneous 33.7 210 59.3 177 26.1 360 54.4 351 POVERTY Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy for income) in USG-assisted areas 2010 USD, PPP 2011 $2.7 0 216 $3.3 4 188 $1.74 364 $2.4 5 354 Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP 58.9 216 39.0 188 77.8 364 54.4 354 Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percentage shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line 33.2 216 47.1 188 57.1 364 37.5 354 RESILIENCE Adaptive capacity index 42.7 216 39.8 188 26.0 364 38.0 354 Absorptive capacity index 49.0 216 32.2 188 24.1 364 37.0 354 Transformative capacity index 42.5 216 39.6 188 28.7 364 26.9 354 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex E: Baseline Indicator Estimates 285 Table A5c.1 Estimates of Select Indicators from the 2018 PREG II Baseline Survey, by county Marsabit Isiolo Turkana Samburu % N % N % N % N WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION Percentage of women 15-49 achieving minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W) 9.3 153 15.7 122 14.4 266 20.1 259 Percentage of women 15-49 consuming MDD food groups Grains, roots, & tubers 91.1 153 89.4 122 85.3 266 92.3 259 Pulses 67.1 153 25.6 122 48.9 266 51.7 259 Nuts and seeds 0.0 153 0.0 122 2.4 266 0.8 259 Dairy 60.3 153 62.9 122 32.3 266 69.5 259 Meat, poultry, fish 18.9 153 21.7 122 49.6 266 29.7 259 Eggs 13.4 153 21.4 122 8.9 266 13.1 259 Dark leafy greens 11.1 153 35.8 122 23.8 266 39.8 259 Vitamin A rich fruits and vegetables 4.0 153 4.3 122 9.9 266 10.4 259 Other vegetables 0.9 153 4.5 122 3.3 266 10.4 259 Other fruits 5.3 153 5.7 122 15.5 266 6.6 259 NOTES: Includes sampling weights to account for multi-stage clustered design and household non-response. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 286 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables ANNEX F: DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS TABLES CONTENTS SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA Table A6.1. Estimated population in the RFSA areas FOOD CONSUMPTION Table A6.2. FIES Raw Score and Percent Households Responding "Yes" to eight questions on FIES scale Table A6.3a. Percent of households consuming FCS food groups and average frequency of consumption in days, Combined RFSA areas Table A6.3b. Percent of households consuming FCS food groups and average frequency of consumption in days, CRS RFSA areas, in total and by county Table A6.3c. Percent of households consuming FCS food groups and average frequency of consumption in days, MC RFSA areas, in total and by county AGRICULTURE Table A6.4a. Percentage of cattle producers by age, in total and by farmers' sex Table A6.4b. Percentage of goat producers by age, in total and by farmers' sex Table A6.4c. Percentage of camel producers by age, in total and by farmers' sex Table A6.5. Percentage of farmers by land tenure type and farm size, in total and by farmers' sex Table A6.6. Percentage of farmers using financial services by type of financial service, in total and by farmers' sex Table A6.7. Percentage of farmers practicing value chain interventions by type, in total and by farmers' sex Table A6.8. Percentage of cattle producers who applied targeted improved management practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age Table A6.9. Percentage of goat producers who applied targeted improved management practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age Table A6.10. Percentage of camel producers who applied targeted improved management practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age WATER, SANITATION, AND HYGIENE (WASH) Table A6.11. Household sanitation and water MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH AND NUTRITION (MCHN) Table A6.12. Percentage of women 15-49 years of age by food groups consumed Table A6.13. Use of antenatal care services (ANC) Table A6.14. Percentage of non-pregnant women 15-49 years who are married or in a union and using a contraceptive method by type of method Table A6.15. Breastfeeding status for children 0-23 months by age in months by type of method Table A6.16. Components of MAD indicator for children 6-23 months by breastfeeding status Table A6.17. Percentage of children 6-23 months by food groups consumed GENDER ACCESS TO CREDIT AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Table A6.18. Percentage of women and men in a union who work by type of work, in total and by sex Table A6.19. Percentage of women and men in a union participating in community groups, by type of group Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 287 RESILIENCE Table A6.20. Distribution of households by types and number of livelihood activities in the year preceding the survey Table A6.21. Shock exposure index (mean) and average shock severity (mean) Table A6.22. Shocks experienced by households in the past 12 months Table A6.23. Coping strategies adopted to recover from any shock Table A6.24a. Coping strategies adopted to recover from: Too little rain/drought Table A6.24b. Coping strategies adopted to recover from: Increasing food prices Table A6.25a. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - absorptive Table A6.25b. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - absorptive, indexed Table A6.26a. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - adaptive Table A6.26b. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - adaptive, indexed Table A6.27a. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - transformative Table A6.27b. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - transformative, indexed COVID-19 AWARENESS, MITIGATION PROTOCOLS, IMPACTS, AND COPING STRATEGIES Table A6.28. COVID-19 awareness and adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols Table A6.29. Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impact on livelihoods, by type of impact Table A6.30. Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods Table A6.31. Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impact on food security, by type of impact Table A6.32. Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on food security Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Total population 897,267 281,264 144,980 136,284 616,003 423,316 192,687 Male 444,830 141,321 72,257 69,064 303,509 208,365 95,144 Female 452,437 139,943 72,723 67,220 312,494 214,951 97,544 Population 15 years or older 443,751 143,541 72,115 71,426 300,211 202,782 97,429 Male 218,048 72,835 36,227 36,608 145,212 96,581 48,632 Female 225,704 70,705 35,888 34,817 154,998 106,201 48,798 Cash earners (15 years or older) 112,015 21,566 7,590 13,976 90,448 59,363 31,086 Male 61,502 15,142 5,118 10,024 46,361 29,200 17,161 Female 50,512 6,424 2,472 3,952 44,088 30,163 13,925 Farmers (15 years or older) 126,697 43,841 30,041 13,800 82,856 53,164 29,693 Male 71,424 28,191 18,052 10,139 43,232 28,555 14,677 Female 55,273 15,649 11,989 3,660 39,624 24,609 15,015 Women of reproductive age (15-49 years) 179,138 56,548 28,612 27,936 122,590 81,828 40,762 Women 15-49 years who are married or in a union 111,607 35,395 19,368 16,027 76,212 51,367 24,846 Women 15-49 years with a live birth within the past five years 101,625 31,393 17,095 14,298 70,232 49,088 21,144 Youth (15-24 years) 179,273 57,390 26,620 30,770 121,883 80,408 41,475 Male 92,515 30,007 13,735 16,272 62,508 41,809 20,699 Female 86,758 27,382 12,885 14,497 59,376 38,599 20,776 Children under 5 years of age 158,417 46,848 25,257 21,590 111,569 79,716 31,853 Male 81,234 24,598 13,368 11,231 56,636 41,109 15,527 Female 77,182 22,249 11,890 10,360 54,933 38,607 16,326 Children 6-23 months of age 42,592 12,884 6,970 5,914 29,708 21,797 7,911 Male 22,610 6,838 3,850 2,988 15,772 12,004 3,768 Female 19,982 6,046 3,120 2,926 13,936 9,793 4,143 Table A6.1. Estimated population in the RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Source: BHA 2021 Kenya baseline survey weighted population estimates. NOTES: As stipulated by USAID’s Feed the Future (FTF) guideline, adults for gendered household type are defined as individuals 18 years of age or older. However, individuals 15 years or older are considered competent members of the household and are included in all other analyses. Combined RFSA areas CRS MC IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 288 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu FIES Raw Score (range: 0-8, mean) 6.7 6.2 6.7 5.7 6.9 7.3 6.2 FIES questions (% Households responding "yes") Worried not enough food to eat 88.6 88.0 89.5 86.3 88.8 92.1 82.3 Unable to eat healthy and nutritious foods 90.1 89.6 90.5 88.5 90.3 93.3 84.3 Ate only a few kinds of foods 90.3 90.9 92.7 89.0 90.0 93.4 83.4 Skipped a meal 84.7 79.2 85.3 72.7 87.0 92.4 76.3 Ate less than you thought you should 88.5 87.5 91.7 83.0 88.9 92.7 81.1 Household ran out of food 83.2 76.4 82.5 69.9 86.0 91.5 74.9 Were hungry but did not eat 80.4 70.4 79.4 60.9 84.5 90.2 73.0 Went a whole day without eating 67.7 43.0 61.2 23.6 78.1 87.0 60.0 Number of Responding Households 3,873 1,974 979 995 1,899 948 951 Table A6.2. FIES Raw Score and Percent Households Responding "Yes" to eight questions on FIES scale [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC NOTES: FIES is a measurement scale used to estimate the probability that each household belongs to a specific category of food insecurity. FIES comprises eight questions that explore a household's difficulty accessing food due to a lack of money or other resources, and reflect the food-related behaviors and experiences of the household. Households are assigned to categories of severity (moderate or severe) based on pre-established thresholds. For more details refer to Supplement to Part 1 - BHA Baseline/Endline Questionnaire and Indicator Tabulations for Resilience Food Security Activities. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 289 Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Percentage of HHs by FCS group Staples1 Percent of HHs consuming food item 97.9 94.9 97.8 99.7 Sorghum, millet, rice, etc…. 97.6 94.7 97.2 99.4 Potatoes, yam, cassava, sweet potato, miritchi, garin rogo, other roots or tubers 40.8 12.7 33.8 59.9 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 5.63 4.45 5.56 6.36 Sorghum, millet, rice, etc…. 5.19 4.28 5.13 5.74 Potatoes, yam, cassava, sweet potato, miritchi, garin rogo, other roots or tubers 1.36 0.29 0.92 2.16 Pulses Percent of HHs consuming food item 60 35 64 74 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 2 1 2 3 Vegetables Percent of HHs consuming food item 60.5 31.3 58.8 78.4 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 2.88 1.01 2.45 4.14 Fruit Percent of HHs consuming food item 24.2 13.3 20.1 32.2 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 0.77 0.46 0.62 1.01 Meat and Fish2 Percent of HHs consuming food item 25.8 13.1 25.2 37.1 Beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, chicken, organ meats, etc… 33.7 11.9 26.7 49.2 Eggs 13.3 3.0 5.0 22.6 Fresh or dried fish or shellfish 13.2 4.5 16.5 17.0 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 1.38 0.28 0.99 2.18 Beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, chicken, organ meats, etc… 0.77 0.17 0.45 1.24 Eggs 0.36 0.03 0.08 0.66 Fresh or dried fish or shellfish 0.42 0.08 0.47 0.61 Table A6.3a. Percent of households consuming FCS food groups and average frequency of consumption in days, Combined RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 290 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Table A6.3a. Percent of households consuming FCS food groups and average frequency of consumption in days, Combined RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas Milk and Dairy Percent of HHs consuming food item 60.9 16.0 47.9 92.2 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 3.30 0.34 1.83 5.60 Sugar Percent of HHs consuming food item 60.8 39.7 59.7 73.6 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 3.45 1.64 3.12 4.63 Oil Percent of HHs consuming food item 82.5 64.9 84.9 91.9 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 4.75 2.77 4.84 5.88 Condiments3 Percent of HHs consuming food item 45.1 25.2 43.9 57.2 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 2.6 1.1 2.4 3.6 Number of responding households 3,875 882 711 2,282 NOTES: FCS is a composite score based on dietary diversity, food frequency and relative nutritional value of the different food groups. Values are then weighted and summed to obtain the FCS. Households are categorized into consumption groups based on pre-established thresholds. A modified threshold was used to account for the local diet which consists of daily oil and sugar consumption: Poor (0 - 28); borderline (28.5 - 42); and acceptable (>42). For more details refer to Supplement to Part 1 - BHA Baseline/Endline Questionnaire and Indicator Tabulations for Resilience Food Security Activities. 1 Staples include cereals and roots and tubers. 2 Meat and fish include meat, fish, and eggs. 3 Condiments are not included in the calculation of FCS. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 291 Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Percentage of HHs by FCS group Staples1 Percent of HHs consuming food item 99.3 96.4 99.1 99.8 99.1 96.7 98.6 100.0 99.5 95.3 100.0 99.6 Sorghum, millet, rice, etc…. 99.1 96.4 99.1 99.5 99.0 96.7 98.6 99.8 99.3 95.3 100.0 99.4 Potatoes, yam, cassava, sweet potato, miritchi, garin rogo, other roots or tubers 56.2 26.3 42.2 64.0 30.3 14.2 18.0 38.9 83.8 78.3 84.3 84.0 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 6.28 4.85 5.92 6.59 5.89 4.62 5.51 6.38 6.70 5.83 6.64 6.76 Sorghum, millet, rice, etc…. 5.73 4.48 5.33 6.01 5.56 4.44 5.25 5.98 5.91 4.63 5.47 6.04 Potatoes, yam, cassava, sweet potato, miritchi, garin rogo, other roots or tubers 2.20 0.78 1.45 2.59 0.97 0.41 0.50 1.29 3.50 2.34 3.11 3.62 Pulses Percent of HHs consuming food item 66 27 59 74 61 26 56 73 70.9 28.7 64.5 74.1 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 2.50 0.55 1.71 2.72 Vegetables Percent of HHs consuming food item 65.5 26.8 51.6 74.7 39.2 16.6 26.3 49.9 93.4 70.3 95.6 94.4 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 3.33 0.91 2.32 3.94 1.51 0.36 0.78 2.08 5.27 3.22 5.01 5.41 Fruit Percent of HHs consuming food item 20.3 6.3 11.4 24.5 10.7 7.4 8.3 12.4 30.5 1.7 16.8 34.1 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 0.53 0.17 0.28 0.64 0.23 0.19 0.20 0.25 0.85 0.07 0.41 0.96 Meat and Fish2 Percent of HHs consuming food item 25.6 15.0 20.2 29.4 23.2 12.3 16.3 29.6 28.6 25.0 27.0 29.2 Beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, chicken, organ meats, etc… 38.1 15.4 25.5 44.6 33.1 13.2 20.6 43.0 43.5 25.0 33.9 45.8 Eggs 14.4 3.1 3.9 18.5 9.1 3.9 3.5 12.4 20.0 0.0 4.6 23.3 Fresh or dried fish or shellfish 3.8 5.7 5.9 3.0 5.1 7.0 9.3 3.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.8 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 1.31 0.38 0.70 1.59 1.05 0.41 0.74 1.33 1.59 0.25 0.64 1.80 Beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, chicken, organ meats, etc… 0.84 0.22 0.45 1.02 0.67 0.21 0.37 0.90 1.02 0.25 0.58 1.12 Eggs 0.40 0.04 0.06 0.53 0.24 0.05 0.06 0.35 0.57 0.00 0.05 0.68 Fresh or dried fish or shellfish 0.13 0.13 0.20 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.32 0.11 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.12 Milk and Dairy Percent of HHs consuming food item 81.7 24.2 56.4 96.4 79.0 28.7 67.0 97.5 84.5 5.3 37.8 95.5 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 4.87 0.57 2.19 6.14 4.46 0.69 2.74 6.11 5.30 0.06 1.21 6.17 Sugar Percent of HHs consuming food item 69.1 43.5 61.2 74.9 66.2 45.2 64.4 72.9 72.2 36.3 55.7 76.5 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 4.39 1.97 3.57 4.95 4.05 1.99 3.63 4.79 4.74 1.90 3.46 5.08 Oil Percent of HHs consuming food item 88.1 52.9 85.0 94.5 85.7 53.3 85.4 95.3 90.7 51.5 84.3 93.8 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 5.63 2.71 5.09 6.22 5.31 2.66 5.05 6.16 5.98 2.90 5.15 6.26 Condiments3 Percent of HHs consuming food item 60.3 38.0 52.0 65.8 54.8 34.9 51.7 61.7 66.2 51.5 52.5 69.0 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 4.01 2.13 3.23 4.48 3.60 1.86 3.27 4.21 4.44 3.25 3.16 4.69 Number of responding households 1,976 232 319 1,425 981 185 195 601 995 47 124 824 NOTES: FCS is a composite score based on dietary diversity, food frequency and relative nutritional value of the different food groups. Values are then weighted and summed to obtain the FCS. Households are categorized into consumption groups based on pre-established thresholds. A modified threshold was used to account for the local diet which consists of daily oil and sugar consumption: Poor (0 - 28); borderline (28.5 - 42); and acceptable (>42). For more details refer to Supplement to Part 1 - BHA Baseline/Endline Questionnaire and Indicator Tabulations for Resilience Food Security Activities. 1 Staples include cereals and roots and tubers. 2 Meat and fish include meat, fish, and eggs. 3 Condiments are not included in the calculation of FCS. Table A6.3b. Percent of households consuming FCS food groups and average frequency of consumption in days, CRS RFSA areas, in total and by county [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Marsabit Isiolo IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 292 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Percentage of HHs by FCS group Staples1 Percent of HHs consuming food item 97.3 94.7 97.3 99.6 97.3 95.1 98.6 99.4 97.3 93.2 94.3 99.8 Sorghum, millet, rice, etc…. 97.0 94.5 96.6 99.4 97.1 95.1 97.7 99.4 96.7 92.2 93.8 99.3 Potatoes, yam, cassava, sweet potato, miritchi, garin rogo, other roots or tubers 34.3 11.0 31.1 56.9 23.0 6.8 27.0 42.5 57.2 28.4 40.7 72.9 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 5.36 4.40 5.44 6.19 5.05 4.24 5.36 5.96 5.99 5.06 5.63 6.45 Sorghum, millet, rice, etc…. 4.96 4.26 5.06 5.53 4.80 4.16 5.03 5.52 5.28 4.68 5.14 5.55 Potatoes, yam, cassava, sweet potato, miritchi, garin rogo, other roots or tubers 1.01 0.23 0.74 1.85 0.64 0.13 0.63 1.34 1.77 0.66 1.01 2.42 Pulses Percent of HHs consuming food item 57.9 36.3 65.3 73.5 55.0 36.9 66.1 72.4 63.7 33.6 63.6 74.7 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 1.84 0.94 2.05 2.54 1.84 1.00 2.16 2.78 1.85 0.69 1.81 2.28 Vegetables Percent of HHs consuming food item 58.5 31.9 61.1 81.0 53.1 29.6 63.0 78.7 69.3 41.4 56.6 83.6 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 2.69 1.02 2.49 4.28 2.32 0.91 2.54 4.10 3.42 1.47 2.35 4.48 Fruit Percent of HHs consuming food item 25.9 14.2 22.9 37.9 24.2 15.9 25.2 34.8 29.4 7.2 17.6 41.3 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 0.87 0.49 0.73 1.27 0.84 0.57 0.85 1.21 0.91 0.17 0.43 1.33 Meat and Fish2 Percent of HHs consuming food item 25.9 12.9 26.9 43.3 25.4 13.5 31.0 47.4 26.8 10.4 18.8 39.4 Beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, chicken, organ meats, etc… 31.9 11.5 27.0 52.6 29.0 11.7 29.9 52.0 37.8 10.5 20.4 53.4 Eggs 12.9 3.0 5.3 25.5 8.9 3.5 3.7 19.7 20.9 0.9 9.3 32.0 Fresh or dried fish or shellfish 17.1 4.4 19.9 27.3 21.2 5.3 27.1 38.9 9.1 0.4 2.9 14.2 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 1.41 0.27 1.08 2.61 1.39 0.31 1.32 2.93 1.46 0.13 0.50 2.25 Beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, chicken, organ meats, etc… 0.74 0.17 0.45 1.40 0.65 0.18 0.52 1.38 0.93 0.12 0.29 1.43 Eggs 0.34 0.03 0.09 0.75 0.22 0.04 0.06 0.58 0.59 0.01 0.15 0.94 Fresh or dried fish or shellfish 0.55 0.07 0.56 0.96 0.67 0.09 0.77 1.41 0.29 0.00 0.06 0.47 Milk and Dairy Percent of HHs consuming food item 52.2 14.9 45.2 89.1 42.2 13.8 38.1 83.9 72.3 19.8 61.9 94.9 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 2.64 0.30 1.71 5.20 1.99 0.28 1.42 4.72 3.95 0.41 2.41 5.74 Sugar Percent of HHs consuming food item 57.3 39.2 59.2 72.6 49.1 33.1 54.8 67.4 73.7 64.4 69.7 78.4 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 3.06 1.60 2.97 4.40 2.47 1.22 2.66 4.05 4.24 3.19 3.71 4.79 Oil Percent of HHs consuming food item 80.1 66.5 84.8 90.1 77.8 65.3 84.6 90.4 84.9 71.6 85.3 89.6 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 4.38 2.78 4.76 5.63 3.96 2.50 4.61 5.55 5.22 3.95 5.12 5.72 Condiments3 Percent of HHs consuming food item 38.7 23.6 41.4 51.0 36.6 22.2 42.3 52.5 43.1 29.2 39.1 49.4 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 2.06 0.96 2.09 3.02 1.91 0.87 2.15 3.19 2.35 1.36 1.95 2.84 Number of responding households 1,899 650 392 857 948 437 203 308 951 213 189 549 NOTES: FCS is a composite score based on dietary diversity, food frequency and relative nutritional value of the different food groups. Values are then weighted and summed to obtain the FCS. Households are categorized into consumption groups based on pre-established thresholds. A modified threshold was used to account for the local diet which consists of daily oil and sugar consumption: Poor (0 - 28); borderline (28.5 - 42); and acceptable (>42). For more details refer to Supplement to Part 1 - BHA Baseline/Endline Questionnaire and Indicator Tabulations for Resilience Food Security Activities. 1 Staples include cereals and roots and tubers. 2 Meat and fish include meat, fish, and eggs. 3 Condiments are not included in the calculation of FCS. Table A6.3c. Percent of households consuming FCS food groups and average frequency of consumption in days, MC RFSA areas, in total and by county [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Turkana Samburu Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 293 Total Male Female N Age 15-19 2.2 0.7 4.0 19 20-24 5.0 2.0 8.7 52 25-29 11.1 8.3 14.7 113 30-34 13.9 16.1 11.3 154 35-39 14.0 13.5 14.5 139 40-44 9.1 11.3 6.3 98 45-49 10.2 11.1 9.0 110 50-54 8.0 9.0 6.8 82 55-59 5.4 6.1 4.5 60 60+ 21.2 21.9 20.2 214 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 1,041 Number of responding cattle producers 1,041 610 431 Total Male Female N Total Male Female N Total Male Female N Age 15-19 1.6 1.4 1.8 8 2.4 2.3 2.4 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 20-24 4.7 2.1 9.3 28 6.0 2.8 10.6 22 2.0 0.9 5.1 6 25-29 7.9 5.7 11.8 48 9.0 5.0 14.6 33 5.8 6.9 2.8 15 30-34 15.8 18.2 11.6 97 16.7 20.9 10.7 67 14.0 13.8 14.5 30 35-39 15.7 14.3 18.1 86 16.0 12.3 21.2 55 15.1 17.5 8.5 31 40-44 7.9 10.0 4.2 53 8.4 11.5 4.0 35 6.8 7.6 4.8 18 45-49 8.8 8.0 10.2 58 7.0 5.8 8.6 28 12.4 11.5 15.1 30 50-54 8.5 8.8 8.0 47 8.2 9.9 5.9 30 9.0 7.0 14.8 17 55-59 7.2 8.1 5.6 42 5.4 6.3 4.2 24 10.7 10.9 10.1 18 60+ 22.0 23.4 19.4 134 20.9 23.1 17.9 80 24.0 24.0 24.2 54 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 601 100.0 100.0 100.0 382 100.0 100.0 100.0 219 Number of responding cattle producers 601 391 210 382 235 147 219 156 63 Combined RFSA Areas CRS RFSA Areas Table A6.4a. Percentage of cattle producers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas- Total CRS RFSA areas - Total Marsabit Isiolo IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 294 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Table A6.4a. Percentage of cattle producers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Male Female N Total Male Female N Total Male Female N Age 15-19 2.7 0.0 5.3 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 3.3 0.0 6.5 11 20-24 5.3 2.0 8.4 24 2.2 0.0 4.2 1 6.0 2.5 9.5 23 25-29 13.6 10.9 16.3 65 7.6 11.6 3.9 4 15.1 10.7 19.2 61 30-34 12.4 13.8 11.1 57 8.4 7.2 9.4 4 13.3 15.3 11.5 53 35-39 12.6 12.8 12.4 53 21.9 18.0 25.5 8 10.4 11.6 9.3 45 40-44 10.0 12.6 7.5 45 10.4 11.9 9.0 5 9.9 12.7 7.2 40 45-49 11.2 14.3 8.3 52 8.9 18.8 0.0 4 11.8 13.3 10.3 48 50-54 7.6 9.2 6.1 35 5.4 11.3 0.0 2 8.2 8.7 7.6 33 55-59 3.9 4.0 3.9 18 2.8 0.0 5.3 1 4.2 4.9 3.5 17 60+ 20.5 20.4 20.7 80 32.5 21.1 42.7 10 17.7 20.2 15.3 70 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 440 100.0 100.0 100.0 39 100.0 100.0 100.0 401 Number of responding cattle producers 440 219 221 39 20 19 401 199 202 MC RFSA Areas 1 Differences in the age distribution by sex are statistically significant for the combined RFSA areas (p<0.001), CRS RFSA areas (p<0.001), Marsabit (p<0.001), MC RFSA areas (p<0.05) and Samburu (p<0.05). Results are not statistically reliable where n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. MC RFSA areas - Total Turkana Samburu Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 295 Total Male Female N Age 15-19 2.4 2.2 2.7 57 20-24 5.2 4.4 6.3 120 25-29 9.8 8.2 12.0 235 30-34 13.1 13.7 12.4 329 35-39 12.6 14.4 10.2 298 40-44 9.3 11.0 7.1 228 45-49 10.4 11.2 9.3 222 50-54 8.4 8.9 7.7 177 55-59 5.8 5.7 5.8 128 60+ 23.1 20.5 26.4 491 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 2,285 Number of responding goat producers 2,285 1,358 927 Total Male Female N Total Male Female N Total Male Female N Age 15-19 2.7 3.2 2.0 33 2.9 3.3 2.2 26 2.3 2.8 1.0 7 20-24 5.1 3.8 7.3 68 5.6 3.8 8.4 52 3.8 4.0 3.2 16 25-29 8.4 6.4 11.8 113 8.4 5.2 13.1 76 8.3 8.9 6.9 37 30-34 15.8 16.1 15.4 211 17.5 18.5 16.0 163 11.5 10.8 13.2 48 35-39 15.5 14.7 16.8 195 16.0 14.7 17.9 137 14.1 14.7 12.6 58 40-44 9.4 11.4 6.1 136 9.9 13.1 5.3 94 8.2 7.9 8.9 42 45-49 8.6 9.0 8.0 115 6.8 7.3 6.0 65 13.3 12.5 15.3 50 50-54 7.7 8.8 5.9 103 7.5 8.7 5.8 73 8.2 8.9 6.5 30 55-59 6.1 6.1 6.0 78 5.3 5.5 5.1 50 8.0 7.4 9.4 28 60+ 20.7 20.6 20.8 280 20.0 19.9 20.2 179 22.3 22.1 23.0 101 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 1,332 100.0 100.0 100.0 915 100.0 100.0 100.0 417 Number of responding goat producers 1,332 858 474 915 564 351 417 294 123 Table A6.4b. Percentage of goat producers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Combined RFSA Areas- Total CRS RFSA Areas CRS RFSA areas - Total Marsabit Isiolo IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 296 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Table A6.4b. Percentage of goat producers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Male Female N Total Male Female N Total Male Female N Age 15-19 2.2 1.5 3.0 24 1.3 1.9 0.7 6 4.1 0.4 7.6 18 20-24 5.3 4.8 5.9 52 4.8 5.6 3.8 20 6.4 2.7 9.9 32 25-29 10.6 9.4 12.0 122 7.9 8.4 7.3 37 16.6 11.8 21.1 85 30-34 11.5 12.0 11.0 118 10.0 10.0 10.0 44 14.8 16.9 12.9 74 35-39 10.8 14.2 7.1 103 11.2 15.3 6.2 49 10.1 11.4 8.8 54 40-44 9.2 10.7 7.6 92 9.2 9.7 8.6 45 9.2 13.0 5.7 47 45-49 11.4 12.7 10.0 107 11.8 12.3 11.2 53 10.7 13.8 7.7 54 50-54 8.7 9.0 8.5 74 9.8 9.3 10.4 41 6.5 8.1 5.0 33 55-59 5.6 5.4 5.8 50 6.5 5.8 7.5 31 3.5 4.5 2.6 19 60+ 24.5 20.4 29.1 211 27.5 21.7 34.4 121 18.1 17.3 18.9 90 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 953 100.0 100.0 100.0 447 100.0 100.0 100.0 506 Number of responding goat producers 953 500 453 447 253 194 506 247 259 MC RFSA areas - Total Turkana Samburu 1 Differences in the age distribution by sex are statistically significant for the combined RFSA areas (p<0.01), CRS RFSA areas (p<0.01), Marsabit (p<0.001), MC RFSA areas (p<0.05) and Samburu (p<0.001). Results are not statistically reliable where n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. MC RFSA Areas Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 297 Total Male Female N Age 15-19 1.7 1.6 1.8 15 20-24 3.9 3.0 5.1 35 25-29 7.5 4.3 12.1 64 30-34 13.6 13.6 13.7 122 35-39 15.4 13.6 17.8 117 40-44 10.8 13.0 7.8 83 45-49 10.1 11.1 8.7 81 50-54 10.6 11.5 9.4 76 55-59 5.1 6.4 3.4 42 60+ 21.2 21.9 20.1 173 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 808 Number of responding camel producers 808 507 301 Total Male Female N Total Male Female N Total Male Female N Age 15-19 2.0 2.1 1.8 13 2.1 2.2 2.0 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 20-24 4.4 3.1 6.8 29 4.4 3.3 6.4 26 4.2 0.0 13.3 3 25-29 6.7 5.0 9.8 46 6.6 4.8 9.8 41 8.3 7.6 10.0 5 30-34 16.7 16.6 16.8 111 17.2 17.2 17.4 106 7.6 8.3 6.1 5 35-39 16.8 14.3 21.1 101 16.7 14.4 20.7 93 18.3 13.7 28.1 8 40-44 10.0 12.6 5.3 66 10.2 13.2 5.2 62 5.7 4.7 7.8 4 45-49 8.5 8.7 8.1 62 7.9 7.8 8.1 51 17.4 21.6 8.3 11 50-54 8.5 9.3 7.1 60 8.7 9.7 7.0 56 6.2 4.4 10.1 4 55-59 4.7 5.7 2.9 34 4.8 5.7 3.0 32 3.6 5.3 0.0 2 60+ 21.8 22.7 20.3 147 21.4 21.8 20.6 130 28.7 34.6 16.2 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 669 100.0 100.0 100.0 610 100.0 100.0 100.0 59 Number of responding camel producers 669 441 228 610 400 210 59 41 18 Table A6.4c. Percentage of camel producers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas CRS RFSA Areas CRS RFSA areas - Total Marsabit Isiolo Combined RFSA Areas- Total IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 298 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Table A6.4c. Percentage of camel producers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Male Female N Total Male Female N Total Male Female N Age 15-19 1.0 0.0 1.8 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2.7 0.0 5.0 2 20-24 2.8 2.9 2.8 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 7.9 8.2 7.6 6 25-29 9.3 2.3 15.4 18 5.2 0.0 9.8 3 16.7 6.3 25.3 15 30-34 7.0 4.6 9.1 11 5.2 2.9 7.2 3 10.4 7.9 12.5 8 35-39 12.4 11.6 13.1 16 14.2 13.4 14.8 7 9.2 8.3 10.0 9 40-44 12.7 14.1 11.5 17 14.0 10.7 16.8 9 10.4 20.2 2.3 8 45-49 13.7 18.7 9.5 19 13.7 20.3 8.0 8 13.8 15.6 12.3 11 50-54 15.2 18.0 12.8 16 19.8 22.1 17.8 10 6.9 10.6 3.9 6 55-59 6.1 8.3 4.3 8 7.3 8.0 6.7 4 4.0 8.8 0.0 4 60+ 19.7 19.5 19.8 26 20.6 22.6 18.9 11 18.0 14.0 21.3 15 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 139 100.0 100.0 100.0 55 100.0 100.0 100.0 84 Number of responding camel producers 139 66 73 55 27 28 84 39 45 MC RFSA Areas MC RFSA areas - Total Turkana Samburu 1 Differences in the age distribution by sex are statistically significant for the combined RFSA areas (p<0.05), CRS RFSA areas (p<0.05), and Marsabit (p<0.05). Results are not statistically reliable where n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 299 Male Female Sig.a 15-29 ≥ 30 Sig.a Land tenureb Owned With written documentation 11.1 13.8 8.0 ** 10.5 11.2 ns Without written documentation 50.4 51.2 49.5 ns 45.2 51.5 ns Rented With written documentation 0.2 0.3 0.2 ns 0.4 0.2 ns Without written documentation 0.6 0.8 0.4 ns 0.6 0.6 ns Share-cropped With written documentation 0.3 0.2 0.4 ns 0.8 0.2 ns Without written documentation 1.3 1.8 0.8 * 0.4 1.5 ns State/communal land With written documentation 0.7 0.9 0.5 ns 0.8 0.7 ns Without written documentation 28.0 24.4 31.9 * 35.3 26.4 * Occupied/squatted without permission 6.4 5.3 7.6 ns 5.0 6.7 ns None 3.2 4.0 2.4 ns 3.0 3.3 ns Number of responding farmers 1,057 599 458 1,057 206 851 Farm size (Ha)c <0.5 54.1 53.4 54.9 * 60.0 52.8 ns ≥0.5-<1.0 11.7 9.8 13.8 6.1 13.0 ≥1.0-<2.5 26.3 28.4 24.0 29.2 25.7 ≥2.5-<5.0 2.7 2.9 2.4 1.2 3.0 ≥5.0-<7.5 1.0 1.7 0.2 0.6 1.1 ≥7.5-<10.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.1 ≥10.0 4.1 3.5 4.7 2.5 4.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of responding farmers 977 546 431 193 784 Combined RFSA Areas Table A6.5. Percentage of farmers by land tenure type and farm size, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Sex Total Age IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 300 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Table A6.5. Percentage of farmers by land tenure type and farm size, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Male Female Sig.a 15-29 ≥ 30 Sig.a Male Female Sig.a 15-29 ≥ 30 Sig.a Male Female Sig.a 15-29 ≥ 30 Sig.a Land tenureb Owned With written documentation 4.8 6.7 1.3 * 1.1 5.5 ns 2.9 4.5 0.6 ns 0.0 4 ns 11.1 12.4 6.0 ns 6.0 12 ns Without written documentation 42.9 42.4 43.8 ns 38.6 43.7 ns 34.7 32.0 38.6 ns 32.2 35 ns 70.9 69.1 77.5 ns 66.1 72 ns Rented With written documentation 0.4 0.0 1.2 ns 0.0 0.5 ns 0.5 0.0 1.4 ns 0.0 1 ns Without written documentation 0.6 0.9 0.0 ns 0.0 0.7 ns 0.2 0.4 0.0 ns 0.0 0 ns 1.7 2.2 0.0 ns 0.0 2 ns Share-cropped With written documentation Without written documentation 1.1 1.8 0.0 ns 0.0 1.4 ns 1.5 2.5 0.0 ns 0.0 2 ns State/communal land With written documentation 1.0 0.0 2.8 * 2.0 0.8 ns 1.3 0.0 3.2 * 2.5 1 ns Without written documentation 43.8 39.5 51.8 ns 52.1 42.3 ns 55.0 52.9 58.0 ns 61.2 54 ns 6.0 4.8 10.5 ns 12.5 5 ns Occupied/squatted without permission 2.6 2.5 2.9 ns 4.3 2.3 ns 3.4 3.4 3.4 ns 5.3 3 ns None 7.1 9.1 3.3 ns 5.1 7.5 ns 5.2 6.8 2.9 ns 2.7 6 ns 13.3 15.2 6.0 ns 15.4 13 ns Number of responding farmers 351 244 107 264 174 90 47 217 87 70 17 12 75 Farm size (Ha)c <0.5 54.7 50.5 61.9 ns 50.3 55.6 ns 58.4 55.8 62.3 ns 54.6 59.2 ns 40.6 35.0 59.8 ns 28.4 42 ns ≥0.5-<1.0 12.9 11.3 15.7 11.4 13.2 11.5 8.1 16.5 6.9 12.5 18.2 20.5 10.3 33.5 16 ≥1.0-<2.5 22.6 26.5 16.0 23.3 22.5 20.1 23.9 14.6 22.3 19.6 32.2 34.0 26.0 28.2 33 ≥2.5-<5.0 2.4 3.7 0.0 1.1 2.6 2.2 3.8 0.0 1.3 2.4 2.8 3.6 0.0 0.0 3 ≥5.0-<7.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.7 0.6 ≥7.5-<10.0 ≥10.0 6.8 7.4 5.7 12.6 5.6 6.9 7.5 6.0 13.2 5.6 6.2 6.9 3.9 9.9 6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 Number of responding farmers 307 211 96 54 253 240 159 81 45 195 67 52 15 9 58 Marsabit Total Sex CRS RFSA Areas Isiolo Age Total Sex Total Sex Age Age CRS RFSA Areas Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 301 Table A6.5. Percentage of farmers by land tenure type and farm size, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Male Female Sig.a 15-29 ≥ 30 Sig.a Male Female Sig.a 15-29 ≥ 30 Sig.a Male Female Sig.a 15-29 ≥ 30 Sig.a Land tenureb Owned With written documentation 12.4 15.8 9.1 ** 12.3 12.5 ns 7.3 10.2 4.4 * 10.1 6.8 ns 19.9 23.8 16.0 * 14.1 21.8 ns Without written documentation 52.0 53.7 50.4 ns 46.4 53.3 ns 57.9 59.7 56.1 ns 49.1 59.3 ns 43.5 45.1 41.9 ns 44.2 43.2 ns Rented With written documentation 0.2 0.4 0.0 ns 0.4 0.1 ns 0.2 0.4 0.0 ns 0.0 0.2 ns 0.2 0.4 0.0 ns 0.8 0.0 ns Without written documentation 0.6 0.8 0.5 ns 0.7 0.6 ns 0.2 0.4 0.0 ns 1.6 0.0 * 1.2 1.3 1.1 ns 0.0 1.6 ns Share-cropped With written documentation 0.3 0.2 0.5 ns 1.0 0.2 ns 0.9 0.5 1.2 ns 1.8 0.5 ns Without written documentation 1.4 1.9 0.9 * 0.5 1.6 ns 1.8 2.8 0.9 ** 0.0 2.1 ns 0.7 0.4 0.9 ns 0.9 0.6 ns State/communal land With written documentation 0.7 1.1 0.2 * 0.6 0.7 ns 0.2 0.4 0.0 ns 0.0 0.2 ns 1.4 2.2 0.5 ns 1.0 1.5 ns Without written documentation 24.6 20.3 28.9 ** 32.2 22.9 * 22.1 17.5 26.6 ns 28.4 21.0 ns 28.2 24.2 32.4 * 35.3 25.9 * Occupied/squatted without permission 7.2 6.1 8.4 ns 5.1 7.7 ns 11.3 9.5 13.0 ns 10.9 11.3 ns 1.3 1.2 1.5 ns 0.4 1.6 ns None 2.4 2.6 2.2 ns 2.6 2.4 ns 0.2 0.0 0.4 ns 0.0 0.2 ns 5.7 6.4 5.0 ns 4.7 6.0 ns Number of responding farmers 706 355 351 147 559 285 142 143 40 245 421 213 208 107 314 Farm size (Ha)c <0.5 54.0 54.1 53.9 ** 61.8 52.3 * 58.4 60.6 56.2 ns 71.4 56.3 ns 47.2 44.1 50.3 ** 53.4 45.1 ns ≥0.5-<1.0 11.5 9.5 13.5 5.1 12.9 13.1 10.8 15.4 5.0 14.4 9.0 7.4 10.5 5.2 10.2 ≥1.0-<2.5 27.0 28.9 25.2 30.3 26.3 24.9 25.6 24.3 23.6 25.1 30.3 34.0 26.7 36.1 28.4 ≥2.5-<5.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.2 3.1 2.2 1.5 2.8 0.0 2.5 3.6 4.5 2.7 2.2 4.0 ≥5.0-<7.5 1.0 2.0 0.1 0.5 1.2 0.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.5 2.9 0.2 0.9 1.8 ≥7.5-<10.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.1 0.3 ≥10.0 3.5 2.4 4.6 0.6 4.2 0.7 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.8 7.9 6.2 9.6 1.1 10.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of responding farmers 670 335 335 139 531 283 141 142 40 243 387 194 193 99 288 MC RFSA Areas Turkana Samburu MC RFSA Areas NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (land tenure type and farmland size) and the disaggregate variable (sex and age). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. b Multiple responses allowed. Totals may add up to more than 100 percent. c Farm size includes the largest total area of farmland that is owned, rented, share-cropped, state/communal land, or occupied without permission. Sex Age Total Sex Age Total Sex Age Total IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 302 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Male Female Sig.a Using agriculture-related financial services 9.0 10.1 7.6 ns Savings 8.2 9.0 7.2 ns Credit 1.6 2.0 1.0 * Insurance 0.5 0.4 0.5 ns Number of responding farmers 2,710 1,620 1,090 Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Using agriculture-related financial services 10.0 10.3 9.5 ns 6.0 6.6 5.0 ns 18.7 16.7 24.1 ns Savings 8.5 8.4 8.8 ns 4.2 4.2 4.1 ns 18.0 15.8 24.1 ns Credit 1.6 2.1 0.8 * 1.7 2.5 0.6 * 1.4 1.4 1.3 ns Insurance 0.3 0.3 0.3 ns 0.3 0.3 0.4 ns 0.3 0.5 0.0 ns Number of responding farmers 1,490 984 506 976 608 368 514 376 138 Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Using agriculture-related financial services 8.5 10.0 6.9 ns 3.2 3.9 2.4 ns 18.1 21.9 14.3 * Savings 8.1 9.4 6.6 ns 2.9 3.6 2.1 ns 17.3 20.6 14.1 * Credit 1.5 1.9 1.1 ns 0.2 0.3 0.0 ns 4.0 5.1 3.0 ns Insurance 0.5 0.4 0.6 ns 0.2 0.0 0.3 ns 1.2 1.3 1.1 ns Number of responding farmers 1,220 636 584 537 296 241 683 340 343 CRS RFSA Areas Table A6.6. Percentage of farmers using financial services by type of financial service, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Combined RFSA Areas- Total 1 Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (use of financial services) and the disaggregate variable (sex). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. CRS RFSA areas - Total Marsabit Isiolo MC RFSA Areas MC RFSA areas - Total Turkana Samburu Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 303 Total Male Female Sig.a Practicing at least one of the value chain interventions promoted by the RFSAb 15.4 15.1 15.9 ns Number of responding farmers 731 485 246 Any value chain commodity Contract farming 1.5 1.5 1.6 ns Selling products via farmer associations 3.5 1.7 6.3 ** Sorting and grading 4.0 3.8 4.3 ns Bulking 5.2 5.5 4.7 ns Improved record keeping, budgeting and financial mgmt 1.9 2.5 1.0 ns Use of training and extension services 1.0 1.7 0.0 ns Number of responding farmers 727 484 243 Fodder production value chain Use of improved pasture inputs (e.g., quality seeds) 27.7 17.1 41.0 ns Use of mechanized pasture harvesting and baling technologies 7.2 0.0 16.4 ns Construction/use of hay stores by farmer organizations 11.9 21.4 0.0 ns Use of fodder seeds 16.2 16.1 16.4 ns Use of harvesting/drying/packaging/storage/marketing technologies 10.3 0.0 23.4 ns Number of responding farmers 27 16 11 Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Practicing at least one of the value chain interventions promoted by the RFSAb 20.1 20.1 20.0 ns 20.4 21.1 18.5 ns 19.4 17.8 23.9 ns Number of responding farmers 441 326 115 301 219 82 140 107 33 Any value chain commodity Contract farming 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Selling products via farmer associations 1.8 1.2 3.0 * 0.7 0.6 0.9 ns 4.3 2.7 8.7 * Sorting and grading 7.6 7.0 9.0 ns 4.8 4.2 6.4 ns 13.8 13.1 16.1 ns Bulking 10.9 11.0 10.6 ns 13.3 13.7 12.3 ns 5.4 5.1 6.2 ns Improved record keeping, budgeting and financial mgmt 1.4 1.8 0.4 ns 1.7 2.2 0.6 ns 0.7 0.9 0.0 ns Use of training and extension services 1.1 1.5 0.0 ns 1.4 1.9 0.0 ns 0.3 0.5 0.0 ns Number of responding farmers 441 326 115 301 219 82 140 107 33 Fodder production value chain Use of improved pasture inputs (e.g., quality seeds) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Use of mechanized pasture harvesting and baling technologies n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Construction/use of hay stores by farmer organizations n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Use of fodder seeds n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Use of harvesting/drying/packaging/storage/marketing technologies n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Number of responding farmers n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a CRS RFSA Areas Table A6.7. Percentage of farmers practicing value chain interventions by type, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Combined RFSA Areas- Total CRS RFSA areas - Total Marsabit Isiolo IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 304 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Table A6.7. Percentage of farmers practicing value chain interventions by type, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Practicing at least one of the value chain interventions promoted by the RFSAb 12.1 10.3 14.2 ns 8.9 3.8 14.6 *** 16.8 19.5 13.4 ns Number of responding farmers 290 159 131 115 60 55 175 99 76 Any value chain commodity Contract farming 2.6 2.9 2.3 ns 1.3 0.0 2.7 ns 4.7 6.9 1.7 ns Selling products via farmer associations 4.7 2.2 7.7 ns 4.6 2.3 7.1 ns 4.9 2.0 8.6 ns Sorting and grading 1.4 0.7 2.1 ns 1.3 0.0 2.7 ns 1.5 1.8 1.1 ns Bulking 1.1 0.3 2.1 ns 0.7 0.0 1.6 ns 1.7 0.7 2.9 ns Improved record keeping, budgeting and financial mgmt n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Use of training and extension services 1.0 1.9 0.0 ns 2.6 4.6 0.0 ns Number of responding farmers 286 158 128 114 60 54 172 98 74 Fodder production value chain Use of improved pasture inputs (e.g., quality seeds) 37.5 24.5 51.9 ns 23.8 0.0 40.1 ns 46.4 35.3 63.3 ns Use of mechanized pasture harvesting and baling technologies 9.8 0.0 20.7 ns 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 40.9 ns Construction/use of hay stores by farmer organizations 16.2 30.7 0.0 ns 23.8 58.6 0.0 ns 11.2 18.5 0.0 ns Use of fodder seeds 22.0 23.1 20.7 ns 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.2 33.2 40.9 ns Use of harvesting/drying/packaging/storage/marketing technologies 14.0 0.0 29.6 ns 35.6 0.0 59.9 ns Number of responding farmers 15 8 7 4 2 2 11 6 5 NOTES: n/a = not applicable (i.e., the intervention is not promoted by the RFSA). a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (use of financial services) and the disaggregate variable (sex). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. b Includes both interventions related to any value chain commodity and for the MC RFSA areas, those pertaining to fodder production. MC RFSA Areas MC RFSA areas - Total Turkana Samburu Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 305 Return to Table of Contents Table A6.8. Condition of cattle based on farmers' perceptions, by livestock category and county [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Marsabit Isiolo Turkana Samburu Number of responding farmers % % % % Adult male Emaciated - bones visible 61.5 42.5 0.0 31.4 229 Thin - fore ribs visible 30.5 40.1 0.0 24.8 158 Borderline - fore ribs not visible, 12th & 13th ribs visible 3.7 12.1 5.4 9.1 42 Moderate - neither fat nor thin 4.4 4.7 90.9 31.4 105 Good - smooth appearance 0.0 0.7 3.7 3.3 8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 542 Adult female Emaciated - bones visible 66.1 40.3 6.6 39.0 443 Thin - fore ribs visible 24.1 45.3 2.5 22.7 247 Borderline - fore ribs not visible, 12th & 13th ribs visible 3.7 10.4 6.1 7.1 60 Moderate - neither fat nor thin 5.8 3.4 79.7 29.0 150 Good - smooth appearance 0.3 0.6 5.1 2.2 12 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 912 Young male stock Emaciated - bones visible 58.6 27.7 15.3 26.2 169 Thin - fore ribs visible 29.5 52.3 0.0 22.8 131 Borderline - fore ribs not visible, 12th & 13th ribs visible 4.2 17.9 14.0 8.8 36 Moderate - neither fat nor thin 7.7 2.2 64.8 40.3 96 Good - smooth appearance 0.0 0.0 5.9 2.0 4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 436 Young female stock Emaciated - bones visible 55.9 32.3 0.0 25.0 142 Thin - fore ribs visible 31.6 45.7 6.4 20.0 120 Borderline - fore ribs not visible, 12th & 13th ribs visible 4.4 14.7 9.2 8.7 33 Moderate - neither fat nor thin 7.7 7.3 78.1 43.4 95 Good - smooth appearance 0.3 0.0 6.4 3.0 6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 396 Male calves Emaciated - bones visible 54.4 38.5 0.0 27.6 117 Thin - fore ribs visible 28.1 44.1 0.0 22.1 92 Borderline - fore ribs not visible, 12th & 13th ribs visible 4.2 8.3 40.2 0.9 13 Moderate - neither fat nor thin 12.9 9.0 59.8 42.2 71 Good - smooth appearance 0.5 0.0 0.0 7.2 8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 301 Female calves Emaciated - bones visible 46.1 30.9 0.0 25.3 93 Thin - fore ribs visible 34.6 54.2 10.2 21.2 96 Borderline - fore ribs not visible, 12th & 13th ribs visible 4.2 8.5 15.9 5.3 14 Moderate - neither fat nor thin 13.9 6.4 63.1 44.3 65 Good - smooth appearance 1.3 0.0 10.9 3.9 6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 274 Marsabit and isoolo - majority cosidered cattle thin to emaciated Turkana - majority rated cattle as moderate to good in appearance Samburu - about halfemaciated/thin and IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 306 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Return to Table of Contents Table A6.8. Condition of goats based on farmers' perceptions, by livestock category and county [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Marsabit Isiolo Turkana Samburu Number of responding farmers % % % % Adult male Emaciated - bones visible 51.5 21.5 0.4 18.6 516 Thin - fore ribs visible 35.3 41.8 6.0 18.0 478 Borderline - fore ribs not visible, 12th & 13th ribs visible 3.6 15.2 5.6 12.9 143 Moderate - neither fat nor thin 9.3 20.8 74.5 44.6 616 Good - smooth appearance 0.3 0.6 13.5 5.8 80 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1,833 Adult female Emaciated - bones visible 55.5 22.1 0.7 19.2 681 Thin - fore ribs visible 32.9 38.3 5.2 19.1 557 Borderline - fore ribs not visible, 12th & 13th ribs visible 4.0 15.9 6.6 12.0 170 Moderate - neither fat nor thin 7.4 23.0 75.1 46.0 717 Good - smooth appearance 0.2 0.7 12.5 3.7 72 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2,197 Young male Emaciated - bones visible 45.1 17.2 0.7 15.0 447 Thin - fore ribs visible 39.1 40.9 4.7 15.0 475 Borderline - fore ribs not visible, 12th & 13th ribs visible 5.2 15.9 4.7 10.7 134 Moderate - neither fat nor thin 10.2 25.2 77.9 53.1 589 Good - smooth appearance 0.4 0.8 11.9 6.3 59 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1,704 Young female Emaciated - bones visible 47.0 18.1 0.9 12.1 443 Thin - fore ribs visible 36.7 36.3 4.3 15.1 451 Borderline - fore ribs not visible, 12th & 13th ribs visible 5.9 19.5 4.9 7.6 134 Moderate - neither fat nor thin 9.9 25.4 75.8 59.8 583 Good - smooth appearance 0.5 0.7 14.1 5.3 60 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1,671 Marsabit and Isiolo - majority considered goats appearance to range rom thin to emaciated Turkana - majority rated condition of goats as moderate to good Samburu - about half or more considered gaots to be of moderate to good condition Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 307 Return to Table of Contents Table A6.8. Condition of camel based on farmers' perceptions, by livestock category and county [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Marsabit Isiolo Turkana Samburu Number of responding farmers % % % % Mature male Emaciated - bones visible 53.9 13.5 0.0 30.6 196 Thin - fore ribs visible 22.8 45.3 6.4 24.9 97 Borderline - fore ribs not visible, 12th & 13th ribs visible 10.1 24.0 11.6 25.2 51 Moderate - neither fat nor thin 13.0 17.2 68.5 16.8 82 Good - smooth appearance 0.2 0.0 13.5 2.5 6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 432 Mature female Emaciated - bones visible 54.8 20.5 2.0 35.4 339 Thin - fore ribs visible 24.4 36.6 2.7 26.0 178 Borderline - fore ribs not visible, 12th & 13th ribs visible 10.2 16.7 7.1 5.2 77 Moderate - neither fat nor thin 10.7 24.2 78.9 33.3 139 Good - smooth appearance 0.0 1.9 9.3 0.0 6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 739 Young male Emaciated - bones visible 54.4 31.7 5.1 26.6 230 Thin - fore ribs visible 26.7 44.4 5.1 24.7 120 Borderline - fore ribs not visible, 12th & 13th ribs visible 10.4 8.5 6.4 7.9 47 Moderate - neither fat nor thin 8.6 15.4 76.9 24.5 60 Good - smooth appearance 0.0 0.0 6.4 16.2 4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 461 Young female Emaciated - bones visible 49.8 20.1 0.0 41.0 197 Thin - fore ribs visible 27.3 38.1 0.0 14.0 110 Borderline - fore ribs not visible, 12th & 13th ribs visible 12.4 17.4 6.0 0.0 56 Moderate - neither fat nor thin 10.3 24.4 81.9 40.2 74 Good - smooth appearance 0.2 0.0 12.1 4.8 4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 441 Marsabit - majority considered camels emaciated to thin Isiolo - more than half rated camels as thin to emaciated Turkana - majority consider camel in moderate condition Samburu - about 50% considered camel appeaance to range from emaciated to thin and the other half considered camels to ranged from borderline to good IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 308 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Household sanitation facility Improved, not shared sanitation facility 7.0 7.8 4.3 11.5 6.6 5.9 8.2 Flush to piped sewer system 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 Flush to septic tank 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.5 1.3 Flush to pit latrine 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 Ventilated improved pit latrine 1.6 1.9 1.3 2.5 1.4 1.5 1.2 Pit latrine with slab 4.5 5.6 3.0 8.3 4.0 3.5 4.9 Composting toilet ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Improved, shared sanitation facility 22.3 26.1 13.2 39.8 20.7 15.7 30.8 Flush to piped sewer system 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 Flush to septic tank 0.3 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 Flush to pit latrine 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.1 Ventilated improved pit latrine 6.5 6.3 3.6 9.1 6.5 6.6 6.5 Pit latrine with slab 14.5 18.7 9.5 28.6 12.8 7.9 22.5 Composting toilet 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 Non-improved sanitation facility 70.1 65.3 81.9 47.6 72.1 77.9 60.6 Flush to somewhere else 0.5 1.1 0.0 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 Flush to don't know where 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Latrine without slab/open pit 6.2 7.0 2.5 11.8 5.9 3.0 11.9 Bucket toilet 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Hanging toilet/latrine 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No Facility/Bush/Field 63.3 57.1 79.3 33.5 65.9 74.7 48.5 Number of responding households 3,887 1,979 983 996 1,908 949 959 Table A6.11. Household sanitation and water [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 309 Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Table A6.11. Household sanitation and water [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Household water source Improved source of drinking water 62.8 70.5 60.3 81.3 59.6 60.9 57.1 Piped water into dwelling 2.3 1.0 0.8 1.3 2.8 2.7 2.9 Piped water into yard/plot 14.2 19.7 1.1 39.6 11.9 11.9 11.8 Piped to neighbor 8.0 7.5 2.3 13.1 8.3 10.3 4.2 Public tap/Standpipe 13.1 13.6 17.4 9.5 13.0 16.0 6.8 Tube well or borehole 13.6 11.4 19.1 3.2 14.5 11.8 19.8 Protected well 5.4 5.1 9.6 0.2 5.5 6.1 4.3 Protected spring 0.5 0.7 1.3 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 Rainwater 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 4.9 Tanker truck 4.1 11 8.5 13.7 1.2 1.5 0.5 Cart with small tank 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0 0.7 Bottled water 0.2 0.2 0 0.4 0.3 0 0.8 Non-improved source of drinking water 37.2 29.5 39.7 18.7 40.4 39.1 42.9 Unprotected well 20.4 20.4 29.3 10.9 20.4 21.2 18.7 Unprotected spring 1.4 1.1 2.1 0.1 1.5 1.6 1.1 Surface water (river/dam/ lake/ponds/stream/canal/irrigation channel) 14.7 6.0 4.9 7.2 18.3 15.9 23.1 Other 0.8 2.0 3.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.0 Number of responding households 3,887 1,979 983 996 1,908 949 959 Distance/time from water source On premises 20.8 24.5 5.1 45.2 19.2 17.1 23.4 ≤ 30-minute roundtrip 43.9 29.6 35.2 23.5 49.9 55.0 39.5 31+ minute roundtrip 35.3 45.9 59.7 31.3 30.9 27.8 37.0 Number of responding households 3,881 1,976 983 993 1,905 948 957 Water production Produces at least 20 liters per person per day 25.8 23.6 21.7 25.7 26.8 25.2 29.8 Number of responding households 3,848 1,956 981 975 1,892 945 947 Water availability Water available from the source all year round 51.7 52.1 59.2 44.4 51.5 52.0 50.6 Water unavailable for a day or longer in the past two weeks 37.8 51.4 39.4 64.2 32.2 34.5 27.5 Number of responding households 3,887 1,979 983 996 1,908 949 959 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 310 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Table A6.11. Household sanitation and water [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Water treatment Chlorination 3.6 4.8 6.2 3.4 3.1 1.8 5.8 Flocculent/disinfectant 1.5 0.9 1.4 0.5 1.7 1.5 2.0 Filtration 1.2 1.5 2.9 0.0 1.1 0.4 2.3 Solar disinfection 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 Boiling 4.7 3.3 4.1 2.5 5.4 3.3 9.5 Let it stand and settle 2.1 4.0 6.3 1.5 1.3 1.0 1.9 Other 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 2.6 3.6 0.4 Number of responding households 3,887 1,979 983 996 1,908 949 959 Handwashing station Water observed at handwashing station 62.8 69.1 60.1 75.4 60.6 54.2 62.4 Cleaning agent observed at handwashing station Soap or detergent 65.7 44.8 81.2 19.5 73.1 31.7 84.8 Ash 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mud or sand 3.8 14.7 5.3 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other cleaning agent 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.7 1.5 No cleaning agent 29.0 40.1 12.5 59.2 25.1 65.6 13.8 Handwashing station is fixed 30.9 15.9 16.5 15.4 36.2 58.2 30.1 Number of responding households 386 163 61 102 223 32 191 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 311 Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Grains, roots, & tubers 96.1 97.1 95.1 99.2 95.6 94.8 97.2 Pulses 32.3 40.2 44.5 35.8 28.6 31.3 23.3 Nuts and seeds 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 Dairy 48.2 69.4 69.0 69.9 38.4 23.1 69.2 Meat, poultry, fish 19.7 21.4 17.6 25.4 18.9 19.6 17.5 Eggs 5.6 5.9 3.8 8.2 5.5 3.6 9.4 Dark leafy greens 31.2 20.0 6.4 33.9 36.3 31.7 45.6 Vitamin A rich fruits and vegetables 9.8 13.3 2.5 24.4 8.1 7.6 9.1 Other vegetables 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.6 1.2 0.6 2.3 Other fruits 8.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 11.6 15.3 4.0 Number of responding women 15-49 years 3,632 1,965 930 1,035 1,667 810 857 NOTES: A woman of reproductive age is considered to consume a minimum dietary diversity if she consumed at least five of 10 specific food groups during the previous day and night. Table A6.12. Percentage of women 15-49 years of age by food groups consumed [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 312 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Percent of births receiving at least four ANC visits during pregnancy1 60.4 62.8 56.2 70.6 59.3 61.5 54.3 Percent of births receiving at least one ANC visits during pregnancy2 90.9 91.5 85.4 98.9 90.6 91.6 88.4 Number of live births in the five years prior to the survey 2,026 1,073 553 520 953 491 462 ANC provider3,4 Doctor 20.7 36.9 39.8 33.8 13.5 15.3 9.1 Nurse 79.9 65.7 66.6 64.6 86.2 86.3 86.0 Midwife 9.0 15.4 3.2 27.9 6.1 5.1 8.5 Health officer 5.3 2.4 3.5 1.3 6.6 4.2 12.5 Health extension worker 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 Traditional birth attendant 1.7 2.3 0.8 3.9 1.4 1.6 1.0 Other 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Number of most recent live births in the five years prior to the survey that received ANC care 1,842 982 468 514 860 454 406 Timing of first ANC visit4 During first three months of pregnancy 30.5 30.8 30.8 30.9 30.4 29.3 33.1 After first three months of pregnancy 69.5 69.2 69.2 69.1 69.6 70.7 66.9 Number of most recent live births in the five years prior to the survey that received ANC care 1,842 982 468 514 860 454 406 Table A6.13. Use of antenatal care services (ANC) [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC NOTES: Use of antenatal care (ANC) refers to the last (most recent) live birth that occurred in the five years prior to the survey. 1 Refers to women who attended at least four ANC visits with a skilled health professional during the most recent pregnancy that resulted in a live birth in the five years preceding the survey. Skilled health personnels include doctors, nurses, midwives, health officers and health extension workers. 2 Refers to women who attended at least one ANC visit with a skilled health professional during the most recent pregnancy that resulted in a live birth in the five years preceding the survey. 3 Multiple responses allowed. Total may add up to more than 100 percent. 4 Includes all most recent live births that received any ANC care regardless of the provider. Combined RFSA areas CRS Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 313 [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Modern methods 23.0 17.8 9.1 28.1 25.4 21.2 34.0 Female sterilization 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 Male sterilization ... … … … … … … Inter-uterine device 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 Injectables 10.2 9.8 2.7 18.2 10.4 9.3 12.6 Implants 6.7 4.4 1.6 7.9 7.7 5.3 12.7 Pill 1.0 0.9 0.4 1.5 1.0 0.9 1.4 Condom 1.5 1.9 3.3 0.2 1.4 0.9 2.3 Female condom ... … … … … … … Emergency contraception 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 Standard days method 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 2.2 2.6 1.3 Lactational amen. method 1.9 0.3 0.4 0.3 2.7 2.1 3.7 Other modern methods 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Traditional methods 2.5 4.7 6.5 2.4 1.5 0.8 2.8 Rhythm 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.7 Withdrawal 1.2 1.2 0.2 2.4 1.2 0.4 2.8 Other traditional methods 1.3 3.6 6.5 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 Does not use any form of contraception 75.1 78.2 85.3 69.7 73.7 77.9 64.9 Number of responding non-pregnant women 15-49 years married or in a union 1,941 1,046 539 507 895 437 458 NOTES: Multiple responses for type of contraceptive method used was allowed. Totals may add up to more than 100 percent. Table A6.14. Percentage of non-pregnant women 15-49 years who are married or in a union and using a contraceptive method by type of method Combined RFSA areas CRS MC IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 314 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Not breastfeeding <2 8.2 4.2 0.0 7.7 9.3 11.8 3.1 2-3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 4-5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 4.0 0.0 6-8 3.4 1.0 2.0 0.0 4.4 4.9 3.3 9-11 3.1 1.0 1.8 0.0 4.3 0.0 12.6 12-17 10.0 5.6 4.9 6.4 12.0 10.0 17.0 18-23 42.0 21.2 18.8 23.5 49.4 50.0 46.9 Exclusively breastfed <2 76.1 74.6 71.3 77.4 76.5 75.8 78.1 2-3 61.1 59.1 54.1 63.9 61.7 58.6 71.3 4-5 26.7 24.6 23.0 26.6 27.5 24.4 34.2 6-8 8.4 6.5 3.7 9.6 9.2 6.5 15.7 9-11 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 4.1 1.9 12-17 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7 1.2 18-23 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 0.0 Breastfed and plain water only <2 4.7 7.2 12.9 2.4 4.0 2.7 7.2 2-3 23.6 24.7 32.3 17.6 23.3 25.7 15.9 4-5 29.0 40.6 45.0 34.6 24.7 25.4 23.2 6-8 17.8 7.3 14.1 0.0 22.2 28.5 7.0 9-11 9.4 5.0 8.6 0.0 11.8 13.5 8.5 12-17 5.8 1.2 0.9 1.7 7.9 11.2 0.0 18-23 1.2 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.2 1.5 0.0 Breastfed and non-milk liquids <2 5.3 4.0 6.4 1.9 5.7 4.7 8.2 2-3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.7 4.2 4-5 4.1 3.4 2.7 4.3 4.3 6.3 0.0 6-8 8.7 2.3 4.4 0.0 11.4 11.9 10.2 Table A6.15. Breastfeeding status for children 0-23 months by age in months by type of method Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 315 [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Table A6.15. Breastfeeding status for children 0-23 months by age in months by type of method Combined RFSA areas CRS MC 9-11 4.6 3.1 5.3 0.0 5.4 8.2 0.0 12-17 2.7 0.7 0.0 1.7 3.7 5.2 0.0 18-23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Breastfed and other milk <2 3.4 7.2 7.5 7.0 2.4 3.3 0.0 2-3 5.6 8.9 4.2 13.3 4.5 4.5 4.6 4-5 23.8 23.3 26.9 18.6 24.0 21.7 29.0 6-8 16.7 18.6 20.9 16.1 15.9 14.3 19.6 9-11 7.4 9.2 11.3 6.3 6.4 9.7 0.0 12-17 3.8 2.6 1.3 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.1 18-23 1.9 5.5 5.6 5.4 0.7 0.6 0.9 Breastfed and complementary foods <2 2.3 2.8 1.9 3.5 2.2 1.7 3.4 2-3 7.2 7.3 9.5 5.2 7.2 9.5 0.0 4-5 14.4 8.2 2.4 15.9 16.7 18.2 13.6 6-8 45.0 64.3 54.9 74.3 37.0 33.9 44.3 9-11 73.4 81.7 73.0 93.7 68.8 64.5 77.1 12-17 77.1 89.9 92.9 86.0 71.2 68.5 77.6 18-23 54.0 72.3 75.6 69.1 47.5 46.4 52.2 Number of children 0-23 months <2 138 61 27 34 77 42 35 2-3 101 43 20 23 58 36 22 4-5 118 56 28 28 62 31 31 6-8 160 82 42 40 78 40 38 9-11 154 87 53 34 67 31 36 12-17 331 177 97 80 154 80 74 18-23 262 131 63 68 131 84 47 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 316 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Table A6.15. Breastfeeding status for children 0-23 months by age in months by type of method Combined RFSA areas CRS MC NOTES: The results for these subgroup analyses are based on small sample sizes and may be unreliable. Breastfeeding status refers to a 24 hour period (yesterday during the day or night). Children who are categorized as breastfeeding and consuming water only consumed no liquid or solid supplements. The categories are mutually exclusive and their percentages sum to 100 percent of children 0-23 months. Children who received breastmilk and non-milk liquids but did not receive other milk or complimentary food are categorized in the non-milk category, though they may have received plain water. Non-milk liquids include juice, juice drinks, porridge, and other liquids such as glucose water or sugar water. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 317 [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Breastfed children 6-8 months Percentage with minimum meal frequency (2 or more) 22.4 37.0 21.7 53.1 16.1 12.4 24.8 Percentage with minimum dietary diversity (4 or more) 2.1 3.2 1.6 4.9 1.6 0.0 5.5 Percentage consuming the following food groups: Grains, roots, and tubers 43.7 57.2 52.3 62.2 37.9 35.4 43.7 Legumes and nuts 11.9 11.9 15.8 7.9 11.8 13.6 7.7 Dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese) 41.8 56.6 51.5 61.9 35.4 28.6 51.5 Flesh foods (meat, fish, poultry, and liver/organ meats) 2.8 3.5 6.9 0.0 2.5 3.5 0.0 Eggs 2.6 7.8 4.3 11.4 0.4 0.0 1.2 Vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables 10.1 11.5 2.0 21.4 9.4 8.2 12.3 Other fruits and vegetables 4.5 0.8 1.6 0.0 6.2 6.4 5.6 Number of children 157 81 41 40 76 39 37 Breastfed children 9-23 months Percentage with minimum meal frequency (3 or more) 17.7 23.0 16.2 31.4 14.9 10.9 26.1 Percentage with minimum dietary diversity (4 or more) 9.5 9.5 6.1 13.6 9.6 6.8 17.5 Percentage consuming the following food groups: Grains, roots, and tubers 80.7 84.3 86.2 82.0 78.8 75.1 89.2 Legumes and nuts 25.6 34.7 36.9 32.0 20.8 23.4 13.5 Dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese) 51.7 63.8 57.0 72.2 45.3 39.2 62.4 Flesh foods (meat, fish, poultry, and liver/organ meats) 11.7 10.5 10.7 10.3 12.3 13.3 9.5 Eggs 4.1 5.7 4.3 7.6 3.2 1.0 9.5 Vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables 21.2 13.9 4.4 25.8 25.0 19.3 41.0 Other fruits and vegetables 6.7 4.8 2.6 7.5 7.7 7.2 9.0 Number of children 620 354 195 159 266 146 120 Table A6.16. Components of MAD indicator for children 6-23 months by breastfeeding status Combined RFSA areas CRS MC IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 318 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Table A6.16. Components of MAD indicator for children 6-23 months by breastfeeding status Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Non-breastfed children 6-23 months Percentage with minimum meal frequency (4 or more + 2 milk) 21.9 32.1 23.2 40.3 20.2 13.7 40.0 Percent with minimum dietary diversity (4 or more) 6.2 2.4 0.0 4.5 6.8 5.6 10.4 Percentage consuming the following food groups: Grains, roots, and tubers 94.1 97.8 100.0 95.8 93.5 93.8 92.4 Legumes and nuts 22.4 42.5 59.6 26.9 19.1 18.7 20.5 Dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese) 43.4 53.8 52.9 54.6 41.8 37.0 56.2 Flesh foods (meat, fish, poultry, and liver/organ meats) 15.2 8.2 4.0 11.9 16.3 14.8 21.0 Eggs 5.1 5.6 6.7 4.5 5.0 4.2 7.2 Vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables 31.6 26.0 2.5 47.6 32.5 29.0 42.7 Other fruits and vegetables 6.8 1.5 0.0 2.9 7.7 5.9 12.9 Number of children 130 42 19 23 88 50 38 NOTES: The results for these subgroup analyses are based on small sample sizes (n<30) and may be unreliable. The MAD indicator is a composite indicator measuring both minimum feeding frequency and minimum dietary diversity, as appropriate for a child’s age and breastfeeding status. Minimum dietary diversity for breastfed children 6-23 months is defined as consuming four or more food groups out of seven food groups. Minimum dietary diversity for non-breastfed children 6-23 months is defined as consuming four or more food groups out of six food groups in addition to two or more milk feeds. Minimum meal frequency for breastfed children 6-23 months is defined as two or more feedings of solid, semi-solid or soft food for children 6-8 months and three or more feedings of solid, semi-solid or soft food for children 9-23 months. Minimum meal frequency for non-breastfed children 6-23 months is defined as four or more feedings of solid, semi-solid or softy foods and two or more milk feeds. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 319 Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Breast milk 82.1 91.8 92.8 90.7 78.0 77.4 79.4 Grains, roots, and tubers 76.9 80.9 81.8 79.8 75.2 72.9 81.3 Legumes and nuts 22.7 31.5 35.2 27.2 18.9 20.7 13.9 Dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese) 48.6 61.8 55.8 68.7 42.9 37.0 59.1 Flesh foods & other misc. small animal protein 10.8 9.2 9.6 8.6 11.5 12.0 10.1 Eggs 4.0 6.1 4.5 8.0 3.1 1.6 7.5 Vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables 21.2 14.5 3.9 27.1 24.1 19.7 36.0 Other fruits and vegetables 6.3 3.9 2.3 5.7 7.4 6.8 9.2 Number of children 6-23 months 907 477 255 222 430 235 195 NOTES: A child 6-23 months is considered to consume a minimum dietary diversity if s/he consumed at least five of the eight food groups during the previous day and night. MC Table A6.17. Percentage of children 6-23 months by food groups consumed [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 320 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Male Female Sig.a Farming/crop production and sales 4.8 4.9 4.7 ns Livestock production/fattening and sales 11.2 15.1 5.0 *** Agricultural wage labor 3.1 3.7 2.1 ns Non-agricultural wage labor 27.0 32.2 18.7 *** Salaried work 22.1 28.4 12.0 *** Sale of wild/bush product 23.0 11.5 41.2 *** Petty trade - selling other products 6.0 2.8 11.1 *** Petty trade - selling own products 2.2 0.2 5.4 *** Self-employment /own business - agricultural 2.6 2.8 2.2 ns Self-employment /own business - nonagricultural 11.2 12.1 9.8 ns Rental of land, house, and rooms 0.9 1.1 0.4 ns Number of responding farmers 1,374 897 477 Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Farming/crop production and sales 1.9 2.1 1.4 ns 0.7 0.4 1.6 ns 2.6 3.0 1.4 ns Livestock production/fattening and sales 19.8 21.7 13.8 ns 31.0 37.9 10.7 *** 13.6 13.0 15.8 ns Agricultural wage labor 3.2 4.2 0.0 ns 2.1 2.8 0.0 ns 3.8 4.9 0.0 ns Non-agricultural wage labor 29.5 31.3 23.7 ns 33.9 33.9 33.9 ns 27.1 30.0 17.6 * Salaried work 27.4 29.9 19.6 ** 24.1 28.6 10.6 ** 29.3 30.6 25.0 ns Sale of wild/bush product 3.6 2.6 7.0 * 3.8 0.5 13.7 *** 3.5 3.7 3.0 ns Petty trade - selling other products 6.9 3.3 18.5 *** 4.4 0.6 15.6 *** 8.3 4.7 20.2 *** Petty trade - selling own products 1.0 0.2 3.6 *** 2.3 0.6 7.2 *** 0.3 0.0 1.4 * Self-employment /own business - agricultural 1.5 1.1 2.8 ns 2.3 1.7 4.0 ns 1.0 0.7 2.1 ns Self-employment /own business - nonagricultural 15.8 15.2 17.7 ns 12.0 10.0 17.9 ns 17.9 18.0 17.6 ns Rental of land, house, and rooms 0.4 0.4 0.5 ns 0.3 0.5 0.0 ns 0.5 0.4 0.8 ns Number of responding farmers 539 412 127 197 144 53 342 268 74 CRS RFSA Areas Table A6.18. Percentage of women and men in a union who work by type of work, in total and by sex [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Combined RFSA Areas- Total CRS RFSA areas - Total Marsabit Isiolo Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 321 Table A6.18. Percentage of women and men in a union who work by type of work, in total and by sex [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Farming/crop production and sales 5.5 5.8 5.1 ns 4.2 5.0 3.1 ns 8.3 7.3 9.8 ns Livestock production/fattening and sales 9.1 13.0 3.8 *** 8.9 13.7 3.0 *** 9.4 11.7 5.7 ns Agricultural wage labor 3.0 3.6 2.3 ns 2.2 3.1 1.0 * 4.8 4.4 5.4 ns Non-agricultural wage labor 26.4 32.5 18.0 *** 20.5 29.6 9.2 *** 37.9 37.6 38.3 ns Salaried work 20.7 27.9 11.0 *** 17.0 24.1 8.1 *** 28.3 34.7 17.8 *** Sale of wild/bush product 27.8 14.4 46.0 *** 36.7 19.5 58.2 *** 10.0 5.4 17.6 *** Petty trade - selling other products 5.8 2.7 10.1 *** 6.2 2.1 11.3 ** 5.1 3.8 7.3 ns Petty trade - selling own products 2.5 0.2 5.7 *** 2.6 0.0 5.8 ** 2.5 0.7 5.5 *** Self-employment /own business - agricultural 2.9 3.4 2.2 ns 2.2 3.2 1.1 ns 4.1 3.7 4.7 ns Self-employment /own business - nonagricultural 10.1 11.1 8.7 ns 9.5 11.7 6.8 ns 11.1 9.8 13.1 ns Rental of land, house, and rooms 1.0 1.4 0.4 ns 0.7 1.3 0.0 ns 1.5 1.5 1.5 ns Number of responding farmers 835 485 350 393 214 179 442 271 171 a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (type of work) and the disaggregate variable (sex). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. MC RFSA Areas MC RFSA areas - Total Turkana Samburu IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 322 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Male Female Sig.a Agricultural/livestock/fisheries producer's group 15.3 16.9 13.5 ns N 496 239 257 Water users' group 14.4 17.1 11.8 *** N 1,783 861 922 Forest users' group 11.5 12.5 10.5 ns N 635 313 322 Credit or microfinance group 27.9 22.4 33.2 *** N 1,536 727 809 Mutual help or insurance group 24.1 24.7 23.7 ns N 236 108 128 Trade and business association 14.5 13.1 16.1 ns N 438 218 220 Civic group 18.7 21.6 15.7 ns N 515 244 271 Local government 4.5 5.6 3.5 ** N 3,379 1,615 1,764 Religious group 42.9 36.3 49.2 *** N 3,036 1,457 1,579 Other group 25.6 24.3 27 ns N 145 66 79 Other formal or informal organization 22.6 13.5 30.2 * N 97 43 54 Table A6.19. Percentage of women and men in a union participating in community groups, by type of group [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Combined RFSA Areas- Total Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 323 Table A6.19. Percentage of women and men in a union participating in community groups, by type of group [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Agricultural/livestock/fisheries producer's group 10 9.2 10.7 ns 16.3 18.4 14.5 ns 5.8 3.6 8 ns N 335 159 176 141 63 78 194 96 98 Water users' group 9.7 11.2 8.1 * 13.3 15 11.7 ns 7.6 9.2 6.1 * N 1,189 574 615 444 207 237 745 367 378 Forest users' group 12.4 14.9 9.8 ns 13 15.7 10.3 ns 7.2 9.1 4.5 ns N 354 173 181 317 153 164 37 20 17 Credit or microfinance group 20.6 12.6 27.8 *** 20.2 10 28.4 *** 20.9 13.8 27.5 *** N 1,054 490 564 346 151 195 708 339 369 Mutual help or insurance group 24.4 27.1 22.1 ns 42.1 40 44.2 ns 17.2 21.2 14.1 ns N 189 88 101 45 20 25 144 68 76 Trade and business association 14.2 10.5 17.7 ns 15.1 4.9 23.6 ** 13.1 16.5 9.5 ns N 211 100 111 121 53 68 90 47 43 Civic group 14.9 16.1 13.8 ns 29 29.9 28.3 ns 10 11.9 8 ns N 406 191 215 115 47 68 291 144 147 Local government 4.1 4.8 3.5 ns 5.9 7.2 4.7 ns 2.9 3.3 2.6 ns N 1,907 911 996 741 340 401 1,166 571 595 Religious group 32.4 29.5 35.3 * 33.9 26.1 41.5 *** 31.3 32.1 30.5 ns N 1,574 768 806 672 318 354 902 450 452 Other group 25.1 18.8 30.5 ns 21.8 13.7 27.9 ns 37.2 32.5 44.7 ns N 114 51 63 87 35 52 27 16 11 Other formal or informal organization 12.4 5.8 17.2 ns 16.4 0 27.8 ns 8.3 11.4 5.8 ns N 45 19 26 19 8 11 26 11 15 CRS RFSA Areas CRS RFSA areas - Total Marsabit Isiolo IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 324 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Table A6.19. Percentage of women and men in a union participating in community groups, by type of group [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Agricultural/livestock/fisheries producer's group 19.8 23 16.1 ns 20.2 21.9 18.2 ns 18.9 25.6 11.1 ns N 161 80 81 92 45 47 69 35 34 Water users' group 18.5 22.1 15 ** 19.4 23.7 15.2 ** 16.9 18.8 14.8 ns N 594 287 307 315 150 165 279 137 142 Forest users' group 11 11.1 10.9 ns 4.2 2.6 5.8 ns 13.5 14.1 12.9 ns N 281 140 141 51 24 27 230 116 114 Credit or microfinance group 34.2 30.3 38.3 * 26.8 22.6 31.1 ns 42.8 39 46.9 ns N 482 237 245 187 91 96 295 146 149 Mutual help or insurance group 23.7 19.9 26.1 ns 12.6 0 18 ns 36.9 34.8 38.8 ns N 47 20 27 19 7 12 28 13 15 Trade and business association 14.7 13.9 15.5 ns 10.1 7.5 13 ns 23.4 25.2 21 ns N 227 118 109 109 54 55 118 64 54 Civic group 24.4 29.6 18.9 ns 26.9 31.7 21.7 ns 19 24.8 13.2 ns N 109 53 56 56 28 28 53 25 28 Local government 4.7 6 3.5 * 4.2 5.5 3 ns 5.7 6.9 4.5 ns N 1,472 704 768 715 336 379 757 368 389 Religious group 47.7 39.5 55.5 *** 44.2 37.2 50.6 *** 53.9 43.5 64 *** N 1,462 689 773 670 315 355 792 374 418 Other group 26.5 31.6 19.9 ns 38.3 46.1 23.1 ns 13.9 9.8 17.6 ns N 31 15 16 11 6 5 20 9 11 Other formal or informal organization 26.3 16 35.3 * 28.6 16.2 39.2 * 14.9 14.8 14.9 ns N 52 24 28 39 18 21 13 6 7 NOTE: The number of respondents (N) includes women and men who indicated that the group exists in their community. a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (group participation) and the disaggregate variable (sex). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. MC RFSA Areas MC RFSA areas - Total Turkana Samburu Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 325 Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Types of Livelihood Activities Farming/crop production and sales 10.6 3.3 2.9 3.8 13.6 12.6 15.6 Livestock production/fattening and sales 33.0 61.2 81.3 40.0 21.3 17.4 29.0 Agricultural wage labor 2.7 1.7 0.4 3.2 3.1 2.0 5.2 Non-agricultural wage labor 22.6 14.3 11.1 17.8 26.0 22.1 33.8 Salaried work 11.2 10.4 6.4 14.7 11.6 8.9 17.0 Sale of wild/bush products (including charcoal and firewood) 24.2 3.0 2.8 3.2 33.0 43.5 12.1 Honey production and sales 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.6 Petty trade (selling other products, e.g., grain, veggies, oil, sugar, etc.) 8.4 6.2 4.7 7.7 9.4 8.6 10.9 Petty trade (selling own products, e.g., local beer, sex work) 2.6 1.0 1.4 0.6 3.3 2.8 4.2 Other self-employment/own business (agricultural, e.g., buying/reselling chat) 3.1 2.6 1.7 3.6 3.2 2.7 4.3 Other self-employment/own business (non-agricultural, e.g., stone cutting, hair 5.9 6.0 1.8 10.6 5.9 5.5 6.7 Rental of land, house, rooms 1.8 1.2 0.3 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.6 Remittances 5.3 13.0 6.5 19.9 2.1 1.4 3.4 Gifts/inheritance 21.8 18.5 26.5 10.0 23.2 24.8 20.0 Safety net food/cash assistance 17.5 16.1 19.4 12.6 18.0 22.7 8.7 Artisanal mining/quarrying 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.7 1.8 Other 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.4 2.2 1.7 3.2 Table A6.20. Distribution of households by types and number of livelihood activities in the year preceding the survey [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 326 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Table A6.20. Distribution of households by types and number of livelihood activities in the year preceding the survey [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Distribution of Number of Livelihood Activities 1 livelihood activity 51.4 57.5 52.7 62.5 48.9 47.7 51.4 2 livelihood activities 30.4 28.8 31.1 26.3 31.1 32.8 27.8 3 livelihood activities 12.9 10.3 11.4 9.0 14.0 13.9 14.3 4 or more livelihood activities 5.2 3.5 4.8 2.2 6.0 5.7 6.5 Number of Responding Households 3,880 1,974 978 996 1,906 950 956 NOTE: Table reports percentage of households engaged in the respective livelihood activity in the past 12 months and the percentage of households engaged in one, two, three, or four or more livelihood activities in the past 12 months. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 327 Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Shock Exposure Index (range: 0-224) 15.6 18.3 20.9 15.5 14.4 13.8 15.7 Number of Responding Households 3,600 1,854 935 919 1,746 868 878 Average Shock Severity (range: 2-8) 4.9 5.3 5.4 5.1 4.8 5.0 4.5 Number of Responding Households 3,464 1,813 925 888 1,651 803 848 Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Table A6.21. Shock exposure index (mean) and average shock severity (mean) [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] NOTE: The denominator for average shock severity is households experiencing at least one shock. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 328 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Climatic shocks Excessive rains 17.2 3.7 4.2 3.1 22.9 27.1 14.6 Flooding 8.7 2.2 1.2 3.4 11.4 15.7 2.7 Too little rain/drought 74.9 88.4 86.1 91.0 69.2 63.9 79.9 Variable rain (early/late) 25.0 32.7 37.9 26.8 21.7 10.6 44.2 Hail/frost 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.8 0.0 5.5 Landslides/erosion 0.7 0.9 1.5 0.1 0.6 0.2 1.4 Biological shocks Crop disease (rust on wheat, sorghum) 2.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 3.7 4.0 3.1 Crop pests (locusts, army worms, or animals eating crops) 14.9 18.0 19.9 16.0 13.5 12.9 14.8 Weeds (e.g., associated with striga) 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.3 2.4 1.8 3.8 Livestock disease 24.9 30.1 48.9 9.3 22.7 22.5 22.9 Human disease outbreaks (from contaminated water) 3.9 3.5 4.7 2.1 4.0 3.0 6.1 Soil degradation/loss of soil fertility/ or salination 1.1 2.4 4.5 0.2 0.6 0.3 1.2 Conflict shocks Theft or destruction of assets 3.8 3.2 1.1 5.5 4.0 3.7 4.7 Theft of livestock (raids/cattle rustling) 6.0 3.4 4.0 2.8 7.1 8.3 4.7 Land conflict 1.8 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.5 2.5 Table A6.22. Shocks experienced by households in the past 12 months [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 329 Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Table A6.22. Shocks experienced by households in the past 12 months [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Water conflict 2.5 4.8 7.0 2.3 1.5 1.2 2.2 Gender Based Violence 1.8 1.5 2.2 0.7 1.9 1.6 2.7 Displacement (e.g., due to oil/gas extraction etc.) 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.9 1.1 3.4 Insecurity/violence (e.g., elections-related, tribal, extremism, etc.) 6.4 11.5 9.0 14.2 4.2 1.4 9.9 Economic shocks Interruptions or delays in safety net or humanitarian assistance 8.3 8.4 12.3 4.2 8.2 10.9 2.7 Increasing food prices 69.8 81.1 83.1 78.8 65.0 64.9 65.4 Increased prices of agricultural or livestock inputs 8.8 15.5 19.6 10.9 6.0 1.9 14.5 Decreased prices for agricultural or livestock products 5.2 11.2 17.4 4.4 2.7 0.9 6.5 Loss of land/rental property 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 Unemployment 10.6 11.1 7.1 15.6 10.3 6.3 18.5 Illness or death of breadwinners, or exceptional health expenses of household 4.6 2.4 2.2 2.5 5.6 5.5 5.8 Non-function of borehole 4.9 10.2 16.6 3.1 2.7 1.4 5.1 Political strife 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 Number of Responding Households 3,600 1,854 935 919 1,746 868 878 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 330 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Livestock and land holdings coping strategies Send livestock in search of pasture 22.6 36.9 39.1 34.5 16.3 10.6 27.8 Sell livestock 29.0 45.4 58.1 30.9 21.8 16.7 32.0 Slaughter livestock 8.9 10.5 15.5 4.7 8.3 5.9 13.0 Lease out land 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.2 Migration coping strategies HH member migrated 9.0 6.8 7.8 5.6 10.1 9.1 11.9 Migrate (the whole family) 6.2 5.0 6.6 3.1 6.8 7.4 5.6 Send children or an adult to stay with relatives 3.9 3.7 3.9 3.4 4.0 5.3 1.4 Coping strategies to reduce current expenditure Take children out of school (to work, or can’t pay school fees) 1.1 0.9 0.1 1.7 1.2 1.0 1.5 Move to less expensive housing 3.1 3.3 0.8 6.1 3.1 2.0 5.2 Reduce food consumption (quantity/meal; # of meals/day) 51.2 57.1 49.7 65.3 48.7 48.6 48.8 Reduced non-essential HH expenses 37.6 39.7 30.6 49.8 36.6 34.3 41.3 Got food on credit from a local merchant 37.9 51.1 43.2 59.9 32.1 29.7 37.0 Coping strategies to get more food or money Take up new/additional work (casual labor, wage labor) 6.0 6.2 5.7 6.9 5.9 4.7 8.3 Sell household items (e.g., radio, bed) 1.0 1.3 0.2 2.7 0.8 0.5 1.4 Sell productive assets (e.g., plough, water pump) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Take out a loan (with interest) from a (formal) bank 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.8 Take out a loan (with interest) from an MFI or village savings group 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 Take out a loan (with interest) from a moneylender 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.7 Take out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives within the community 2.7 5.6 3.0 8.5 1.4 1.2 1.8 Take out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives outside of the community 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.5 1.1 Gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, etc. (bonding)1 6.1 6.7 5.8 7.7 5.9 7.9 1.9 Gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, etc. (bridging)1 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.7 4.8 1.6 Table A6.23. Coping strategies adopted to recover from any shock [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 331 Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Table A6.23. Coping strategies adopted to recover from any shock [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Send children to work for money (e.g., domestic service) 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.1 Receive emergency food aid from the government or NGO 5.3 4.6 6.2 2.9 5.6 7.3 2.1 Receive emergency cash transfer from the government or NGO 2.5 2.7 3.2 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.4 Participate in government or NGO food-for-work or cash-for-work activities 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 Use money from savings 47.6 33.8 39.1 27.7 53.6 56.0 49.0 Remittances from a relative that migrated 7.5 15.5 22.3 7.9 4.0 3.5 5.1 Engaged in spiritual efforts (e.g., prayed, sacrifices, etc.) 6.2 7.4 10.3 4.2 5.7 4.4 8.3 Other (specify) 5.8 8.2 2.9 14.2 4.7 3.1 8.0 Number of Responding Households 3,464 1,813 925 888 1,651 803 848 NOTE: The denominator used is households reporting experiencing at least one shock in the last 12 months. This table presents adoption of the respective coping strategy if the household reports adopting the strategy for any shock experienced in the past 12 months. Households experiencing multiple shocks in the past 12 months have more opportunity to report adoption of a coping strategy than households experiencing only one shock in the same time period. 1 Bonding refers to social capital within a group or community. Bridging refers to social capital between different communities or groups. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 332 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Livestock and land holdings coping strategies Send livestock in search of pasture 22.9 33.5 32.7 34.2 17.3 10.1 28.7 Sell livestock 21.8 33.0 39.4 26.7 15.9 11.0 23.7 Slaughter livestock 5.2 3.2 5.2 1.3 6.3 3.2 11.2 Lease out land 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 Migration coping strategies HH member migrated 5.3 2.8 4.4 1.3 6.6 4.5 10.0 Migrate (the whole family) 2.0 0.8 1.4 0.3 2.6 2.5 2.8 Send children or an adult to stay with relatives 1.2 1.9 1.9 1.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 Coping strategies to reduce current expenditure Take children out of school (to work, or can’t pay school fees) 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.2 1.2 Move to less expensive housing 1.6 1.9 0.3 3.5 1.4 1.0 2.2 Reduce food consumption (quantity/meal; # of meals/day) 31.5 35.6 25.9 45.1 29.3 29.5 29.0 Reduced non-essential HH expenses 22.4 24.6 14.6 34.4 21.3 19.8 23.5 Got food on credit from a local merchant 24.5 34.4 26.3 42.4 19.2 17.4 22.0 Coping strategies to get more food or money Take up new/additional work (casual labor, wage labor) 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.2 3.7 5.1 Sell household items (e.g., radio, bed) 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.2 0.9 Sell productive assets (e.g., plough, water pump) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Take out a loan (with interest) from a (formal) bank 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Take out a loan (with interest) from an MFI or village savings group 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Take out a loan (with interest) from a moneylender 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 Take out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives within the community 1.6 4.1 2.1 6.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Take out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives outside of the community 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, etc. (bonding)1 3.3 4.0 3.0 4.9 2.9 4.0 1.3 Gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, etc. (bridging)1 1.7 1.9 1.7 2.1 1.6 2.2 0.6 Send children to work for money (e.g., domestic service) 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 Receive emergency food aid from the government or NGO 3.3 2.6 2.9 2.2 3.7 4.9 1.8 Receive emergency cash transfer from the government or NGO 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 Table A6.24a. Coping strategies adopted to recover from: Too little rain/drought [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 333 Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Table A6.24a. Coping strategies adopted to recover from: Too little rain/drought [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Participate in government or NGO food-for-work or cash-for-work activities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Use money from savings 23.5 10.0 9.0 11.0 30.6 37.2 20.2 Remittances from a relative that migrated 4.8 9.9 15.0 4.9 2.1 1.6 2.9 Engaged in spiritual efforts (e.g., prayed, sacrifices, etc.) 1.2 1.4 2.3 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 Did nothing 1.1 2.8 0.4 5.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 Other (specify) 3.3 5.6 1.0 10.1 2.0 1.0 3.7 Number of Responding Households 3,157 1,744 841 903 1,413 607 806 NOTE: The denominator used is households reporting experiencing drought in the last 12 months. This table presents adoption of the respective coping strategy if the household reports adopting the strategy specifically in response to drought experienced in the past 12 months. 1 Bonding refers to social capital within a group or community. Bridging refers to social capital between different communities or groups. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 334 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Livestock and land holdings coping strategies Send livestock in search of pasture 2.4 5.0 4.5 5.7 1.0 0.1 2.8 Sell livestock 18.0 27.8 34.2 20.9 12.8 6.5 25.0 Slaughter livestock 3.5 4.8 7.6 1.8 2.8 1.3 5.8 Lease out land 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Migration coping strategies HH member migrated 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.4 1.2 Migrate (the whole family) 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.0 Send children or an adult to stay with relatives 1.8 1.8 2.5 1.1 1.8 2.5 0.5 Coping strategies to reduce current expenditure Take children out of school (to work, or can’t pay school fees) 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.9 Move to less expensive housing 1.7 2.0 0.7 3.3 1.6 1.3 2.2 Reduce food consumption (quantity/meal; # of meals/day) 52.8 53.9 48.1 60.2 52.3 53.7 49.5 Reduced non-essential HH expenses 38.2 35.5 28.2 43.5 39.6 39.9 38.9 Got food on credit from a local merchant 34.5 45.2 35.2 56.1 28.8 28.0 30.3 Coping strategies to get more food or money Take up new/additional work (casual labor, wage labor) 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.7 3.1 1.5 6.3 Sell household items (e.g., radio, bed) 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.5 Sell productive assets (e.g., plough, water pump) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Take out a loan (with interest) from a (formal) bank 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 Take out a loan (with interest) from an MFI or village savings group 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 Take out a loan (with interest) from a moneylender 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.2 Take out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives within the community 2.0 4.7 2.3 7.3 0.5 0.7 0.1 Take out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives outside of the community 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.5 Gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, etc. (bonding)1 4.5 5.1 4.2 6.1 4.2 6.3 0.0 Gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, etc. (bridging)1 1.9 1.8 2.2 1.4 1.9 2.7 0.2 Send children to work for money (e.g., domestic service) 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 Receive emergency food aid from the government or NGO 2.3 1.5 1.5 1.4 2.8 3.7 1.0 Receive emergency cash transfer from the government or NGO 1.4 1.3 1.6 0.9 1.6 1.8 1.0 Participate in government or NGO food-for-work or cash-for-work activities 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table A6.24b. Coping strategies adopted to recover from: Increasing food prices [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 335 Total Marsabit Isiolo Total Turkana Samburu Table A6.24b. Coping strategies adopted to recover from: Increasing food prices [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Use money from savings 14.7 6.4 6.3 6.4 19.2 21.4 14.8 Remittances from a relative that migrated 2.4 5.0 7.8 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 Engaged in spiritual efforts (e.g., prayed, sacrifices, etc.) 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.5 1.1 1.1 0.9 Did nothing 1.1 2.5 0.8 4.4 0.3 0.2 0.5 Other (specify) 3.3 6.0 1.2 11.3 1.8 0.6 4.2 Number of Responding Households 2,786 1,576 800 776 1,210 587 623 NOTE: The denominator used is households reporting experiencing increased food prices in the last 12 months. This table presents adoption of the respective coping strategy if the household reports adopting the strategy specifically in response to increasing food prices experienced in the past 12 months. 1 Bonding refers to social capital within a group or community. Bridging refers to social capital between different communities or groups. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 336 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Absorptive Capacity Index (0-100) 33.9 37.8 33.0 42.9 *** 32.2 29.2 38.3 *** Availability of informal safety nets (0-6) 0.70 1.4 1.7 1.2 2.1 *** 1.3 1.1 1.6 ns Bonding social capital index (0-6) 0.34 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.2 ns 3.0 2.8 3.3 ** Access to savings (0-1) 0.63 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.31 * 0.16 0.10 0.30 *** Access to remittances (0-1) 0.13 0.05 0.13 0.07 0.20 *** 0.02 0.01 0.03 ns Index of asset ownership (0-71) 0.65 6.0 6.4 5.8 7.0 * 5.9 5.1 7.3 *** Shock preparedness and mitigation (0-4) 0.40 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ns 1.0 0.9 1.0 ns Access to insurance (0-1) 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ns 0.01 0.01 0.02 ns Access to humanitarian assistance (0-1) 0.28 0.24 0.32 0.25 0.39 * 0.20 0.24 0.12 * Number of Responding Households 3,876 1,973 977 996 1,903 949 954 Adaptive Capacity Index (0-100) 33.2 34.1 30.8 37.6 ** 32.8 29.2 40.0 *** Index of asset ownership (0-71) 0.66 6.0 6.4 5.8 7.0 * 5.9 5.1 7.3 *** Index for education and training (0-2) 0.64 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.7 *** 0.6 0.5 0.7 * Index for exposure to information (0-19) 0.62 3.1 3.9 4.2 3.5 2.8 2.1 4.4 *** Index of social network (0-3) 0.60 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.3 *** 0.6 0.5 0.7 * Access to financial resources (0-2) 0.59 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.8 ** 0.6 0.5 0.9 ns Index of aspirations/confidence to adapt (0-16) 0.51 10.2 9.5 9.3 9.8 ns 10.5 10.3 10.9 ns Linking social capital index (0-4) 0.40 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ns 0.2 0.2 0.4 ** Livelihood Diversification (0-17) 0.33 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 * 1.8 1.8 1.8 ns Bridging social capital index (0-6) 0.22 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 ns 2.9 2.8 3.1 * Adoption of improved practices (0-1) 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.03 *** 0.08 0.07 0.11 ns Number of Responding Households 3,875 1,973 977 996 1,902 949 953 Table A6.25a. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - absorptive [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Factor loading Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 337 Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Table A6.25a. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - absorptive [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Factor loading Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Transformative Capacity Index (0-100) 37.3 39.0 28.3 50.4 *** 36.6 33.4 42.9 ns Access to infrastructure (0-4) 0.83 2.3 2.4 2.0 2.8 *** 2.3 2.2 2.4 ns Access to livestock services (0-2) 0.75 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.7 ns 0.3 0.3 0.4 ns Access to basic services (0-5) 0.75 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.5 * 2.0 1.7 2.5 * Access to markets (0-3) 0.67 1.6 1.2 0.6 1.8 *** 1.7 1.5 2.0 ns Access to extension (0-2) 0.64 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 ** 0.2 0.2 0.2 ns Participation in local decision making (0-1) 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ns 0.02 0.02 0.03 ns Access to communal natural resources (0-4) 0.15 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 ns 0.1 0.1 0.1 ns Linking social capital index (0-4) 0.09 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ns 0.2 0.2 0.4 ** Gender index (0-7) 0.06 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.7 * 1.1 1.0 1.4 *** Bridging social capital index (0-6) 0.05 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 ns 2.9 2.8 3.1 * Formal safety nets (0-6) N/A 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.2 ns 0.7 0.8 0.5 ns Collective action (0-10) N/A 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 ** 0.1 0.1 0.1 ns Number of Responding Households 3,880 1,974 978 996 1,906 950 956 NOTE: Factor loadings represent correlation of the sub-indicator with the respective index. Indicator labels describe the theoretical range of the respective indicator. Resilience capacity sub-indicators are reported in their original units (i.e., not indexed 0-100) a Significance tests were performed to determine whether estimates differ by county. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 338 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Absorptive Capacity Index (0-100) 33.9 37.8 33.0 42.9 *** 32.2 29.2 38.3 *** Availability of informal safety nets (0-100) 23.2 27.7 20.1 35.7 *** 21.4 19.0 26.1 ns Index of asset ownership (0-100) 8.5 9.0 8.2 9.8 * 8.2 7.2 10.3 *** Access to savings (0-100) 18.9 24.8 19.2 30.8 * 16.4 9.8 29.7 *** Shock preparedness and mitigation (0-100) 24.0 24.4 23.8 25.0 ns 23.9 23.5 24.6 ns Bonding social capital index (0-100) 50.2 52.2 51.4 53.1 ns 49.3 46.9 54.2 ** Access to humanitarian assistance (0-100) 23.6 31.7 24.6 39.2 * 20.2 24.1 12.5 * Access to remittances (0-100) 5.3 13.0 6.5 19.9 *** 2.1 1.4 3.4 ns Access to insurance (0-100) 1.6 1.8 1.5 2.2 ns 1.4 1.1 2.1 ns Number of Responding Households 3,876 1,973 977 996 1,903 949 954 Adaptive Capacity Index (0-100) 33.2 34.1 30.8 37.6 ** 32.8 29.2 40.0 *** Index of asset ownership (0-100) 8.5 9.0 8.2 9.8 ns 8.2 7.2 10.3 * Index for education and training (0-100) 28.1 27.9 21.8 34.3 ns 28.1 24.2 36.2 ** Index for exposure to information (0-100) 16.5 20.3 22.3 18.2 *** 14.9 10.9 22.9 * Index of social network (0-100) 23.3 33.5 24.3 43.2 *** 19.0 16.2 24.7 * Access to financial resources (0-100) 30.1 26.4 11.3 42.4 * 31.7 24.3 46.6 ns Index of aspirations/confidence to adapt (0-100) 63.9 59.6 58.4 61.0 *** 65.7 64.4 68.4 ns Linking social capital index (0-100) 5.6 5.3 6.2 4.2 ns 5.8 4.2 9.1 *** Livelihood Diversification (0-100) 10.2 9.4 10.0 8.9 * 10.6 10.6 10.6 *** Bridging social capital index (0-100) 49.1 50.7 49.2 52.4 ** 48.4 46.7 51.9 ns Adoption of improved practices (0-100) 8.2 8.4 13.1 3.3 ns 8.2 6.7 11.3 ** Number of Responding Households 3,875 1,973 977 996 1,902 949 953 Table A6.25b. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - absorptive, indexed [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 339 Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Table A6.25b. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - absorptive, indexed [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Transformative Capacity Index (0-100) 37.3 39.0 28.3 50.4 *** 36.6 33.4 42.9 ns Access to infrastructure (0-100) 57.3 59.5 48.9 70.7 ns 56.5 54.7 59.9 ns Access to livestock services (0-100) 19.4 26.0 16.2 36.5 *** 16.6 14.3 21.2 ns Access to basic services (0-100) 39.6 41.0 32.6 50.0 ns 39.0 34.0 49.1 ns Access to markets (0-100) 51.8 40.5 21.4 60.8 * 56.6 50.8 68.1 * Access to extension (0-100) 9.8 11.9 2.2 22.2 *** 8.9 7.6 11.6 ns Participation in local decision making (0-100) 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.3 ** 2.0 1.5 2.8 ns Access to communal natural resources (0-100) 4.8 9.5 7.3 11.8 ns 2.8 3.1 2.4 ns Linking social capital index (0-100) 5.6 5.3 6.2 4.2 ns 5.8 4.2 9.1 * Gender index (0-100) 17.2 20.8 17.7 24.0 ns 15.7 13.6 19.7 ** Bridging social capital index (0-100) 49.1 50.7 49.1 52.4 ** 48.4 46.7 51.9 ns Formal safety nets (0-100) 12.5 15.3 11.3 19.5 ns 11.4 12.9 8.3 ns Collective action (0-10) 0.7 0.9 1.4 0.4 * 0.6 0.6 0.8 *** Number of Responding Households 3,880 1,974 978 996 1,906 950 956 NOTE: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether estimates differ by county. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 340 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Absorptive Capacity Index (0-100) 33.9 37.8 33.0 42.9 *** 32.2 29.2 38.3 *** Access to humanitarian assistance (0-1) 0.28 0.24 0.32 0.25 0.39 *** 0.20 0.24 0.12 ns Access to insurance (0-1) 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ns 0.01 0.01 0.02 ** Shock preparedness and mitigation (0-4) 0.40 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 * 1.0 0.9 1.0 *** Index of asset ownership (0-71) 0.65 6.0 6.4 5.8 7.0 *** 5.9 5.1 7.3 ns Access to remittances (0-1) 0.13 0.05 0.13 0.07 0.20 * 0.02 0.01 0.03 *** Access to savings (0-1) 0.63 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.31 ns 0.16 0.10 0.30 ns Bonding social capital index (0-6) 0.34 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.2 ns 3.0 2.8 3.3 ns Availability of informal safety nets (0-6) 0.70 1.4 1.7 1.2 2.1 * 1.3 1.1 1.6 * Number of Responding Households 3,876 1,973 977 996 1,903 949 954 Adaptive Capacity Index (0-100) 33.2 34.1 30.8 37.6 ** 32.8 29.2 40.0 *** Bridging social capital index (0-6) 0.22 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 ns 2.9 2.8 3.1 * Linking social capital index (0-4) 0.40 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ns 0.2 0.2 0.4 ** Index of social network (0-3) 0.60 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.3 *** 0.6 0.5 0.7 * Index for education and training (0-2) 0.64 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.7 *** 0.6 0.5 0.7 * Livelihood Diversification (0-17) 0.33 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 * 1.8 1.8 1.8 ns Adoption of improved practices (0-1) 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.03 *** 0.08 0.07 0.11 ns Index for exposure to information (0-19) 0.62 3.1 3.9 4.2 3.5 ns 2.8 2.1 4.4 *** Index of asset ownership (0-71) 0.66 6.0 6.4 5.8 7.0 * 5.9 5.1 7.3 *** Access to financial resources (0-2) 0.59 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.8 ** 0.6 0.5 0.9 ns Index of aspirations/confidence to adapt (0-16) 0.51 10.2 9.5 9.3 9.8 ns 10.5 10.3 10.9 ** Number of Responding Households 3,875 1,973 977 996 1,902 949 953 Factor CRS MC loading Table A6.26a. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - adaptive [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 341 Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Factor CRS MC loading Table A6.26a. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - adaptive [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas Transformative Capacity Index (0-100) 37.3 39.0 28.3 50.4 *** 36.6 33.4 42.9 ns Formal safety nets (0-6) N/A 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.2 ns 0.7 0.8 0.5 ns Access to markets (0-3) 0.67 1.6 1.2 0.6 1.8 *** 1.7 1.5 2.0 ns Access to communal natural resources (0-4) 0.15 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 ns 0.1 0.1 0.1 ns Access to basic services (0-5) 0.75 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.5 * 2.0 1.7 2.5 * Access to infrastructure (0-4) 0.83 2.3 2.4 2.0 2.8 *** 2.3 2.2 2.4 ns Access to extension (0-2) 0.64 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 ** 0.2 0.2 0.2 ns Access to livestock services (0-2) 0.75 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.7 ns 0.3 0.3 0.4 ns Bridging social capital index (0-6) 0.05 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 ns 2.9 2.8 3.1 * Linking social capital index (0-4) 0.09 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ns 0.2 0.2 0.4 ** Collective action (0-10) N/A 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 ** 0.1 0.1 0.1 ns Participation in local decision making (0-1) 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ns 0.02 0.02 0.03 ns Gender index (0-7) 0.06 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.7 * 1.1 1.0 1.4 *** Number of Responding Households 3,880 1,974 978 996 1,906 950 956 NOTE: Factor loadings represent correlation of the sub-indicator with the respective index. Indicator labels describe the theoretical min-max range of the respective indicator. Resilience capacity sub-indicators are reported in their original units (i.e., not indexed 0-100) a Significance tests were performed to determine whether estimates differ by county. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 342 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Absorptive Capacity Index (0-100) 33.9 37.8 33.0 42.9 *** 32.2 29.2 38.3 *** Access to insurance (0-100) 1.6 1.8 1.5 2.2 ns 1.4 1.1 2.1 ns Access to remittances (0-100) 5.3 13.0 6.5 19.9 *** 2.1 1.4 3.4 ns Access to humanitarian assistance (0-100) 23.6 31.7 24.6 39.2 * 20.2 24.1 12.5 * Bonding social capital index (0-100) 50.2 52.2 51.4 53.1 ns 49.3 46.9 54.2 ** Shock preparedness and mitigation (0-100) 24.0 24.4 23.8 25.0 ns 23.9 23.5 24.6 ns Access to savings (0-100) 18.9 24.8 19.2 30.8 * 16.4 9.8 29.7 *** Index of asset ownership (0-100) 8.5 9.0 8.2 9.8 * 8.2 7.2 10.3 *** Availability of informal safety nets (0-100) 23.2 27.7 20.1 35.7 *** 21.4 19.0 26.1 ns Number of Responding Households 3,876 1,973 977 996 1,903 949 954 Adaptive Capacity Index (0-100) 33.2 34.1 30.8 37.6 ** 32.8 29.2 40.0 *** Bridging social capital index (0-100) 49.1 50.7 49.2 52.4 ns 48.4 46.7 51.9 * Linking social capital index (0-100) 5.6 5.3 6.2 4.2 ns 5.8 4.2 9.1 ** Index of social network (0-100) 23.3 33.5 24.3 43.2 *** 19.0 16.2 24.7 * Index for education and training (0-100) 28.1 27.9 21.8 34.3 *** 28.1 24.2 36.2 * Livelihood Diversification (0-100) 10.2 9.4 10.0 8.9 * 10.6 10.6 10.6 ns Adoption of improved practices (0-100) 8.2 8.4 13.1 3.3 *** 8.2 6.7 11.3 ns Index for exposure to information (0-100) 16.5 20.3 22.3 18.2 ns 14.9 10.9 22.9 *** Index of asset ownership (0-100) 8.5 9.0 8.2 9.8 * 8.2 7.2 10.3 *** Access to financial resources (0-100) 30.1 26.4 11.3 42.4 ** 31.7 24.3 46.6 ns Index of aspirations/confidence to adapt (0-100) 63.9 59.6 58.4 61.0 ns 65.7 64.4 68.4 ** Number of Responding Households 3,875 1,973 977 996 1,902 949 953 Combined CRS MC RFSA areas Table A6.26b. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - adaptive, indexed [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 343 Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Combined CRS MC RFSA areas Table A6.26b. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - adaptive, indexed [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Transformative Capacity Index (0-100) 37.3 39.0 28.3 50.4 *** 36.6 33.4 42.9 ns Formal safety nets (0-100) 12.5 15.3 11.3 19.5 ns 11.4 12.9 8.3 ns Access to markets (0-100) 51.8 40.5 21.4 60.8 * 56.6 50.8 68.1 * Access to communal natural resources (0-100) 4.8 9.5 7.3 11.8 ns 2.8 3.1 2.4 ns Access to basic services (0-100) 39.6 41.0 32.6 50.0 ns 39.0 34.0 49.1 ns Access to infrastructure (0-100) 57.3 59.5 48.9 70.7 ns 56.5 54.7 59.9 ns Access to extension (0-100) 9.8 11.9 2.2 22.2 *** 8.9 7.6 11.6 ns Access to livestock services (0-100) 19.4 26.0 16.2 36.5 *** 16.6 14.3 21.2 ns Bridging social capital index (0-100) 49.1 50.7 49.1 52.4 ** 48.4 46.7 51.9 ns Linking social capital index (0-100) 5.6 5.3 6.2 4.2 ns 5.8 4.2 9.1 * Collective action (0-10) 0.7 0.9 1.4 0.4 * 0.6 0.6 0.8 *** Participation in local decision making (0-100) 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.3 ** 2.0 1.5 2.8 ns Gender index (0-100) 17.2 20.8 17.7 24.0 ns 15.7 13.6 19.7 ** Number of Responding Households 3,880 1,974 978 996 1,906 950 956 NOTE: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether estimates differ by county. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 344 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Absorptive Capacity Index (0-100) 33.9 37.8 33.0 42.9 *** 32.2 29.2 38.3 *** Access to humanitarian assistance (0-1) 0.28 0.24 0.32 0.25 0.39 *** 0.20 0.24 0.12 ns Access to insurance (0-1) 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ns 0.01 0.01 0.02 ** Shock preparedness and mitigation (0-4) 0.40 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 * 1.0 0.9 1.0 *** Index of asset ownership (0-71) 0.65 6.0 6.4 5.8 7.0 *** 5.9 5.1 7.3 ns Access to remittances (0-1) 0.13 0.05 0.13 0.07 0.20 * 0.02 0.01 0.03 *** Access to savings (0-1) 0.63 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.31 ns 0.16 0.10 0.30 ns Bonding social capital index (0-6) 0.34 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.2 ns 3.0 2.8 3.3 ns Availability of informal safety nets (0-6) 0.70 1.4 1.7 1.2 2.1 * 1.3 1.1 1.6 * Number of Responding Households 3,876 1,973 977 996 1,903 949 954 Adaptive Capacity Index (0-100) 33.2 34.1 30.8 37.6 ns 32.8 29.2 40.0 *** Adoption of improved practices (0-1) 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.03 *** 0.08 0.07 0.11 ns Bridging social capital index (0-6) 0.22 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 ns 2.9 2.8 3.1 * Livelihood Diversification (0-17) 0.33 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 * 1.8 1.8 1.8 ns Linking social capital index (0-4) 0.40 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ns 0.2 0.2 0.4 ** Index of aspirations/confidence to adapt (0-16) 0.51 10.2 9.5 9.3 9.8 ns 10.5 10.3 10.9 ** Access to financial resources (0-2) 0.59 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.8 ** 0.6 0.5 0.9 ns Index of social network (0-3) 0.60 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.3 *** 0.6 0.5 0.7 * Index for exposure to information (0-19) 0.62 3.1 3.9 4.2 3.5 ns 2.8 2.1 4.4 *** Index for education and training (0-2) 0.64 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.7 *** 0.6 0.5 0.7 * Index of asset ownership (0-71) 0.66 6.0 6.4 5.8 7.0 * 5.9 5.1 7.3 *** Number of Responding Households 3,875 1,973 977 996 1,902 949 953 Table A6.27a. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - transformative [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Factor loading Combined CRS MC RFSA areas Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 345 Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Table A6.27a. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - transformative [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Factor loading Combined CRS MC RFSA areas Transformative Capacity Index (0-100) 37.3 39.0 28.3 50.4 *** 36.6 33.4 42.9 ns Formal safety nets (0-6) N/A 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.2 ns 0.7 0.8 0.5 ns Collective action (0-10) N/A 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 ** 0.1 0.1 0.1 ns Bridging social capital index (0-6) 0.05 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 ns 2.9 2.8 3.1 * Gender index (0-7) 0.06 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.7 * 1.1 1.0 1.4 *** Linking social capital index (0-4) 0.09 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ns 0.2 0.2 0.4 ** Access to communal natural resources (0-4) 0.15 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 ns 0.1 0.1 0.1 ns Participation in local decision making (0-1) 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ns 0.02 0.02 0.03 ns Access to extension (0-2) 0.64 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 ** 0.2 0.2 0.2 ns Access to markets (0-3) 0.67 1.6 1.2 0.6 1.8 *** 1.7 1.5 2.0 ns Access to basic services (0-5) 0.75 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.5 * 2.0 1.7 2.5 * Access to livestock services (0-2) 0.75 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.7 ns 0.3 0.3 0.4 ns Access to infrastructure (0-4) 0.83 2.3 2.4 2.0 2.8 *** 2.3 2.2 2.4 ns Number of Responding Households 3,880 1,974 978 996 1,906 950 956 NOTE: Factor loadings represent correlation of the sub-indicator with the respective index. Indicator labels describe the theoretical min-max range of the respective indicator. Resilience capacity sub-indicators are reported in their original units (i.e., not indexed 0-100) a Significance tests were performed to determine whether estimates differ by county. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 346 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Absorptive Capacity Index (0-100) 33.9 37.8 33.0 42.9 *** 32.2 29.2 38.3 *** Access to insurance (0-100) 1.6 1.8 1.5 2.2 ns 1.4 1.1 2.1 ns Access to remittances (0-100) 5.3 13.0 6.5 19.9 *** 2.1 1.4 3.4 ns Access to humanitarian assistance (0-100) 23.6 31.7 24.6 39.2 * 20.2 24.1 12.5 ** Bonding social capital index (0-100) 50.2 52.2 51.4 53.1 ns 49.3 46.9 54.2 ** Shock preparedness and mitigation (0-100) 24.0 24.4 23.8 25.0 ns 23.9 23.5 24.6 ns Access to savings (0-100) 18.9 24.8 19.2 30.8 * 16.4 9.8 29.7 *** Index of asset ownership (0-100) 8.5 9.0 8.2 9.8 * 8.2 7.2 10.3 *** Availability of informal safety nets (0-100) 23.2 27.7 20.1 35.7 *** 21.4 19.0 26.1 ns Number of Responding Households 3,876 1,973 977 996 1,903 949 954 Adaptive Capacity Index (0-100) 33.2 34.1 30.8 37.6 ** 32.8 29.2 40.0 *** Adoption of improved practices (0-100) 8.2 8.4 13.1 3.3 *** 8.2 6.7 11.3 ns Bridging social capital index (0-100) 49.1 50.7 49.2 52.4 ns 48.4 46.7 51.9 * Livelihood Diversification (0-100) 10.2 9.4 10.0 8.9 * 10.6 10.6 10.6 ns Linking social capital index (0-100) 5.6 5.3 6.2 4.2 ns 5.8 4.2 9.1 ** Index of aspirations/confidence to adapt (0-100) 63.9 59.6 58.4 61.0 ns 65.7 64.4 68.4 ** Access to financial resources (0-100) 30.1 26.4 11.3 42.4 ** 31.7 24.3 46.6 ns Index of social network (0-100) 23.3 33.5 24.3 43.2 *** 19.0 16.2 24.7 * Index for exposure to information (0-100) 16.5 20.3 22.3 18.2 ns 14.9 10.9 22.9 *** Index for education and training (0-100) 28.1 27.9 21.8 34.3 *** 28.1 24.2 36.2 * Index of asset ownership (0-100) 8.5 9.0 8.2 9.8 * 8.2 7.2 10.3 *** Number of Responding Households 3,875 1,973 977 996 1,902 949 953 CRS MC Table A6.27b. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - transformative, indexed [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 347 Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a CRS MC Table A6.27b. Resilience capacity indexes and indicators - transformative, indexed [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas Transformative Capacity Index (0-100) 37.3 39.0 28.3 50.4 *** 36.6 33.4 42.9 ns Formal safety nets (0-100) 12.5 15.3 11.3 19.5 ns 11.4 12.9 8.3 ns Collective action (0-10) 0.7 0.9 1.4 0.4 * 0.6 0.6 0.8 ns Bridging social capital index (0-100) 49.1 50.7 49.1 52.4 ** 48.4 46.7 51.9 * Gender index (0-100) 17.2 20.8 17.7 24.0 ns 15.7 13.6 19.7 *** Linking social capital index (0-100) 5.6 5.3 6.2 4.2 ns 5.8 4.2 9.1 ** Access to communal natural resources (0-100) 4.8 9.5 7.3 11.8 ns 2.8 3.1 2.4 ns Participation in local decision making (0-100) 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.3 ** 2.0 1.5 2.8 ns Access to extension (0-100) 9.8 11.9 2.2 22.2 *** 8.9 7.6 11.6 ns Access to markets (0-100) 51.8 40.5 21.4 60.8 * 56.6 50.8 68.1 ns Access to basic services (0-100) 39.6 41.0 32.6 50.0 ns 39.0 34.0 49.1 * Access to livestock services (0-100) 19.4 26.0 16.2 36.5 *** 16.6 14.3 21.2 ns Access to infrastructure (0-100) 57.3 59.5 48.9 70.7 ns 56.5 54.7 59.9 ns Number of Responding Households 3,880 1,974 978 996 1,906 950 956 NOTE: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether whether estimates differ by county. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 348 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a % Households aware of COVID-19 97.5 97.5 96.0 99.1 97.5 98.4 95.7 Number of Responding Households 3878 1972 977 995 1906 950 956 Adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols Quarantine 3.5 3.4 4.9 2.0 ns 3.6 4.5 1.8 * Separation from sick person 3.8 7.1 1.8 11.8 ** 2.3 3.0 1.1 ns No contact with sick person 5.7 10.2 3.4 16.2 ** 3.7 2.9 5.2 ns Washed hands soap & water 18.4 20.5 17.9 22.7 ns 17.5 16.8 18.9 ns Wash hands more often 10.5 9.6 4.3 14.2 ** 10.9 10.3 12.1 ns Help from medical clinic 2.7 3.2 0.7 5.4 ** 2.4 1.6 4.1 ns Number of Responding Households 2390 1254 552 702 1136 548 588 COVID-19 vaccination 1.4 3.3 0.8 5.2 * 0.5 0.3 1.0 ns Number of Responding Households 1906 993 405 588 913 445 468 Table A6.28. COVID-19 awareness and adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas NOTE: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether estimates differ by county. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. CRS MC Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 349 Total Marsabit Isiolo Siga Total Turkana Samburu Siga % Households with livelihood impacted by COVID-19 49.4 49.9 41.4 58.9 49.2 49.1 49.5 Number of Responding Households 3879 1973 977 996 1906 950 956 Type of impact to livelihood Increase in price of food and other items 48.6 49.4 44.4 53.2 ns 48.3 55.7 33.7 ** Increase in price of products sold 28.7 28.1 27.8 28.4 ns 29.0 27.6 31.8 ns Inability to access livestock market to sell products or buy inputs (movement restrictions) 28.7 37.7 49.2 29.2 ** 24.9 15.8 43.2 *** Inability to access markets for food and other necessities (movement restrictions) 25.2 26.2 34.8 19.8 * 24.8 19.6 35.0 *** Reduction in income 24.4 24.8 12.5 34.0 *** 24.2 28.1 16.6 * Increase in transportation costs 21.7 20.3 18.8 21.4 ns 22.2 22.3 22.0 ns Lost employment 11.2 8.8 3.8 12.6 ** 12.2 9.3 18.0 * Inability to access agricultural commodity market to sell products or buy inputs 12.8 17.3 20.7 14.8 ns 10.9 7.8 16.9 * Inability to access health care 6.3 9.3 13.4 6.2 ** 5.0 6.1 3.0 * Unwilling/afraid to access health care because of the perceived risks of contact 6.9 12.1 14.6 10.3 ns 4.7 4.7 4.8 ns Increase in price of livestock inputs 6.1 10.1 15.3 6.3 * 4.5 1.2 10.9 ** Decrease in demand for products 3.2 1.8 1.9 1.7 ns 3.8 3.5 4.5 ns Increase in price of crop inputs 3.4 3.1 4.4 2.1 ns 3.5 2.7 5.3 ns Decrease in price of products sold 3.2 2.9 4.0 2.1 ns 3.3 2.0 5.9 ** Constrained access to water 3.4 5.1 2.4 7.2 * 2.6 3.2 1.6 ns Looting/theft 2.2 1.4 0.3 2.2 ns 2.5 3.2 1.3 ns Difficulty accessing financial services and credit 2.2 2.7 1.7 3.4 ns 2.0 2.2 1.5 ns Illness 2.7 4.5 0.8 7.3 * 2.0 2.0 1.9 ns Inability to repay loans 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.5 ns 1.9 1.9 1.8 ns Increase in storage costs 1.8 1.6 0.7 2.2 ns 1.8 1.9 1.7 ns Table A6.29. Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impact on livelihoods, by type of impact [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 350 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Siga Total Turkana Samburu Siga Table A6.29. Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impact on livelihoods, by type of impact [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Labor shortages (lack of labor to help with farming and processing) 1.6 1.2 0.2 1.9 * 1.7 0.8 3.6 * Death 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.4 ns 1.5 1.7 1.1 ns Inability to farm and/or care for livestock due to sickness of HH member 1.6 2.1 2.8 1.5 ns 1.4 1.1 2.1 ns Constrained access to pasture 2.7 6.0 3.0 8.2 * 1.3 1.0 1.9 ns Delay or interruption of cash assistance 1.7 2.7 2.4 2.9 ns 1.2 1.3 1.1 ns Unable to engage with other community members in asset-building activities (road building, etc.) 1.2 1.1 0.0 2.0 ** 1.2 1.5 0.5 ns Other 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.8 * 1.0 0.7 1.6 ns Shortage of livestock inputs (feed and veterinary services) 0.7 1.1 1.6 0.7 ns 0.5 0.7 0.1 ns Don't Know 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.5 0.5 0.4 ns Shortage of crop inputs (seeds, fertilizer, pesticides) 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 ns 0.4 0.3 0.7 ns Constrained access to land 0.6 1.3 0.1 2.1 ns 0.3 0.4 0.2 ns Refused 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Number of Responding Households 1906 993 405 588 913 445 468 NOTE: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether estimates differ by county. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 351 Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Strategies adopted to cope with impact of COVID-19 on livelihood Reduced food consumption 49.0 46.8 42.8 49.7 ns 50.0 54.9 40.2 * Reduced non-essential expenses 42.6 37.1 27.5 44.3 ** 45.0 47.2 40.4 ns Food on credit local merchant 30.8 40.0 24.8 51.2 *** 27.0 25.8 29.2 ns Washed hands soap & water 15.8 19.8 18.1 21.0 ns 14.1 12.4 17.7 ns Sold livestock 14.4 20.6 20.2 21.0 ns 11.8 6.9 21.4 ** Did nothing 8.0 5.8 5.0 6.3 ns 8.9 8.7 9.3 ns Savings to buy food 6.7 10.7 2.5 16.9 *** 5.0 3.7 7.7 ns Less expensive housing 4.4 3.7 0.4 6.1 ** 4.7 3.7 6.5 ns Emergency food aid govt/NGO 3.8 2.9 4.0 2.0 ns 4.3 5.7 1.4 * Wash hands more often 4.8 6.4 2.7 9.2 * 4.1 3.7 5.0 ns Slaughter livestock 4.2 4.8 7.7 2.6 * 4.0 2.2 7.5 * Take up more work 3.9 3.9 3.1 4.5 ns 3.9 2.7 6.3 ns Livestock to pasture 6.6 14.2 11.8 16.0 ns 3.4 1.7 6.6 * No contact with sick person 5.3 10.9 3.7 16.2 * 3.0 2.4 4.3 ns Sent children elsewhere 2.8 2.8 4.1 1.8 ns 2.8 4.0 0.3 * Money/food from local group 3.4 5.3 4.0 6.2 ns 2.6 3.9 0.0 ** HH member migrated 2.1 1.3 2.3 0.5 * 2.5 2.0 3.6 ns Quarantine 2.6 2.9 4.4 1.7 ns 2.4 3.0 1.4 ns Help from medical clinic 2.1 2.4 0.2 4.1 ** 2.0 1.0 3.9 * Money/food from outside 2.0 2.4 3.3 1.6 ns 1.8 2.5 0.4 * Migrate (family) 1.6 1.5 2.5 0.7 ns 1.7 2.1 1.0 ns Physical separation from sick person 3.2 6.9 1.7 10.8 ** 1.6 1.9 1.1 ns Other 1.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 ns 1.5 1.9 0.8 ns Children out of school 1.5 1.9 2.3 1.5 ns 1.3 1.5 1.0 ns Savings for education 1.7 2.6 0.6 4.1 ** 1.3 1.2 1.4 ns Savings for other expenses 1.9 3.5 0.9 5.5 ** 1.2 0.9 1.8 ns Loan from bank 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.4 ns 1.2 1.6 0.2 ns Emergency cash transfer govt/NGO 1.2 1.2 1.7 0.9 ns 1.1 0.9 1.5 ns Spiritual practices 4.5 12.6 18.7 8.1 ** 1.1 1.4 0.6 ns Loan within the community 2.2 5.3 0.9 8.6 ** 0.9 0.8 1.1 ns Loan from moneylender 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 ns 0.8 1.1 0.3 ns Loan from MFI/VSLA 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.6 ns 0.7 0.5 1.1 ns Table A6.30. Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 352 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Strategies adopted to cope with impact of COVID-19 on livelihood Table A6.30. Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC COVID 19 vaccination 1.4 3.3 0.8 5.2 * 0.5 0.3 1.0 ns Permanent food support govt/NGO 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 ns 0.5 0.4 0.6 ns Lease out land 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.3 0.5 0.0 ns Savings to pay health care 0.8 2.1 0.1 3.5 * 0.3 0.2 0.4 ns Remittances 0.6 1.4 0.0 2.5 * 0.2 0.1 0.4 ns Sell household items 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 ns 0.2 0.1 0.3 ns Savings dwelling repair 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.8 * 0.1 0.1 0.0 ns Loan outside of the community 0.3 0.9 0.6 1.1 ns 0.1 0.1 0.0 ns Savings to buy productive assets 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 ns 0.1 0.0 0.2 ns Permanent cash transfer govt/NGO 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 ns 0.1 0.0 0.2 ns Sell productive assets 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 ns 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Savings to buy livestock 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 ns 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Sent children to work 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 ns 0.0 0.0 0.0 . FFW/CFW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Number of Responding Households 1906 993 405 588 913 445 468 NOTE: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether estimates differ by county. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 353 Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Households with food security impacted by COVID-19 56.0 58.6 52.3 65.2 * 54.9 54.8 54.9 ns Number of Responding Households 3880 1975 978 997 1905 950 955 Type of impact to food security Price of foods increased 88.0 90.9 90.4 91.3 ns 86.7 89.9 80.3 * Unable to market (movement restrictions or market closed) 41.1 39.7 44.7 35.3 ns 41.8 33.9 57.5 *** Products not available in the market 34.6 39.4 27.3 49.8 *** 32.4 26.2 44.9 *** Traders are absent from the markets 26.3 28.8 28.8 28.9 ns 25.2 18.3 39.0 *** Delay of food aid 21.2 17.7 22.5 13.6 ns 22.8 29.1 10.1 * Other 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.6 ns 0.3 0.0 0.9 ns Number of Responding Households 2180 1161 508 653 1019 500 519 NOTE: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether estimates differ by county. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Combined RFSA areas Table A6.31. Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impact on food security, by type of impact [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS MC IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 354 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Strategies adopted to cope with impact of COVID-19 on food security Reduced food consumption 47.3 48.2 42.6 53.0 ns 46.9 49.7 41.4 ns Reduced non-essential expenses 39.7 35.6 26.3 43.6 ** 41.6 41.9 40.9 ns Food on credit from local merchant 32.6 40.8 24.3 54.9 *** 28.9 29.5 27.8 ns Sold livestock 17.5 22.7 24.2 21.4 ns 15.2 9.3 27.1 ** Washed hands with soap & water 10.5 9.6 8.6 10.4 ns 10.9 9.4 13.9 ns Wash hands more often 8.8 6.6 2.6 10.1 ** 9.8 8.8 11.9 ns Did nothing 9.1 10.3 11.5 9.3 ns 8.6 9.3 7.1 ns Emergency food aid govt/NGO 4.1 2.5 2.1 2.9 ns 4.8 6.7 1.0 * Savings to buy food 5.9 8.6 2.3 13.9 *** 4.8 4.3 5.6 ns Slaughter livestock 4.3 4.2 7.7 1.2 ** 4.4 1.7 9.9 n** Less expensive housing 3.2 3.1 0.3 5.4 ** 3.3 1.7 6.4 ** Livestock to pasture 4.1 6.9 6.0 7.7 ns 2.8 1.1 6.3 * Take up more work 2.5 2.4 1.1 3.5 * 2.6 1.9 4.0 ns Sent children elsewhere 2.2 2.3 2.8 1.8 ns 2.2 2.8 1.0 ns Quarantine 2.2 2.1 3.3 1.1 ns 2.2 2.7 1.3 ns Money/food from local group 2.8 4.2 3.0 5.2 ns 2.2 3.1 0.3 ** Emergency cash transfer govt/NGO 1.8 1.1 1.7 0.7 ns 2.1 2.4 1.5 ns HH member migrated 1.8 1.3 2.1 0.6 ns 2.0 2.1 1.7 ns Help from medical clinic 1.7 2.1 0.6 3.4 * 1.5 0.9 2.8 ns No contact with sick person 2.2 3.7 1.9 5.3 * 1.5 1.1 2.3 ns Separation from sick person 1.8 3.1 0.6 5.2 ** 1.3 1.7 0.3 ns Money/food from outside 1.5 2.0 2.7 1.3 ns 1.3 1.6 0.6 ns Loan from bank 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.3 ns 1.2 1.6 0.5 ns Loan from moneylender 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.3 ns 1.1 1.3 0.8 ns Loan within the community 2.3 4.8 0.7 8.3 *** 1.1 1.0 1.3 ns Children out of school 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.4 ns 1.1 1.0 1.2 ns Savings for other expenses 1.2 1.5 0.5 2.4 ns 1.1 1.1 1.0 ns Other (specify) 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.5 ns 1.0 1.2 0.7 ns Spiriitual practices 3.5 9.1 11.8 6.8 ns 1.0 1.0 1.1 ns Permanent food support govt/NGO 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.9 1.1 0.6 ns Loan from MFI/VSLA 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.5 ns 0.8 0.5 1.6 ns Savings for education 1.0 1.4 0.0 2.6 ** 0.8 0.3 1.9 * Loan outside of the community 0.7 1.1 0.4 1.8 ns 0.5 0.7 0.3 ns Table A6.32. Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on food security [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables 355 Total Marsabit Isiolo Sig.a Total Turkana Samburu Sig.a Strategies adopted to cope with impact of COVID-19 on food security Table A6.32. Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on food security [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA areas CRS MC Savings to pay health care 0.9 1.8 0.0 3.3 ** 0.5 0.4 0.6 ns Migrate (family) 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 ns 0.5 0.6 0.2 ns Sell productive assets 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 ns 0.3 0.3 0.2 ns Sell household items 0.4 0.8 0.0 1.6 * 0.2 0.0 0.6 ns Remittances 0.4 1.0 0.0 1.8 ns 0.2 0.3 0.0 ns Permanent cash transfer govt/NGO 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 ns 0.1 0.0 0.4 ns Savings to buy livestock 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 ns 0.1 0.1 0.0 ns Savings to buy productive assets 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 ns 0.1 0.0 0.2 ns Lease out land 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 ns 0.1 0.0 0.2 ns Savings dwelling repair 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 ns 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Sent children to work 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 ns 0.0 0.0 0.0 . FFW/CFW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Number of households responding 2180 1161 508 653 1019 500 519 NOTE: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether estimates differ by county. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 356 Annex F: Descriptive Analysis Tables CONTENTS FOOD CONSUMPTION Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas Table A7.1b. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - CRS RFSA Areas Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas Table A7.2a. Percentage of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable food consumption score (FCS) by household background characteristics - CRS RFSA Areas Table A7.2b. Percentage of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable food consumption score (FCS) by household background characteristics - MC RFSA Areas Table A7.2c. Average (mean values) of household background characteristics by category of FCS groups (poor, borderline, acceptable food consumption score), by RFSA area and county POVERTY Table A7.3a. Percentage of households by poverty status by household characteristics and practices -CRS RFSA Areas Table A7.3b. Percentage of households by poverty status by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas Table A7.3c. Averages (mean values) of household background characteristics by household poverty status ($1.90 poverty line), by RFSA Area and county AGRICULTURE Table A7.4a. Percentage of livestock producers applying targeted improved management practices by access to agricultural financial services and livestock type- CRS RFSA Areas, Total Table A7.4b. Percentage of livestock producers applying targeted improved management practices by access to agricultural financial services and livestock type- CRS RFSA Areas, Marsabit Table A7.4c. Percentage of livestock producers applying targeted improved management practices by access to agricultural financial services and livestock type- CRS RFSA Areas, Isiolo Table A7.4d. Percentage of livestock producers applying targeted improved management practices by access to agricultural financial services and livestock type- MC RFSAs Areas, Total Table A7.4e. Percentage of livestock producers applying targeted improved management practices by access to agricultural financial services and livestock type- MC RFSA Areas, Turkana Table A7.4f. Percentage of livestock producers applying targeted improved management practices by access to agricultural financial services and livestock type- MC RFSA Areas, Samburu MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH AND NUTRITION (MCHN) Table A7.5a. Percentage of women 15-49 years with minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W) by women's and household background characteristics Table A7.5b. Table A7.5b. Average (mean) values of household background characteristics by women with a minimim dietary diet (MDD) and women without MDD, by RFSA area and county Table A7.6a. Percentage of children 6-23 months with a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) by child and household background characteristics Table A7.6b. Table A7.5b. Average (mean) values of household background characteristics by children with a minimim acceptable diet (MAD) and children without MAD, by RFSA area and county Table A7.7a. Percentage of children 6-23 months with minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) by children's and household background characteristics Table A7.7b.Average (mean) values of household background characteristics by children with a minimim dietary diet (MDD) and children without MDD, by RFSA area and county WATER, SANITATION, AND HYGIENE (WASH) Table A7.8. Prevalence of diarrhea among children under five by sex, age, and household water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facilities and practices, by RFSA area and county Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 357 ANNEX G: BIVARIATE AND MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS TABLES Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Percentage of households by FIES groups 11.5 88.5 3,873 Socio-economic characteristics Number of children under 5 years 0 46.4 40.0 * 1 35.7 32.7 2 15.0 22.1 3 or more 2.9 5.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of children 5-17 years 0 36.5 21.4 *** 1 21.3 20.4 2 15.8 20.3 3 12.3 15.8 4 or more 14.0 22.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of adult females (18+) 0 13.3 7.0 *** 1 66.3 76.9 2 or more 20.5 16.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of adult males (18+) 0 10.9 21.6 *** 1 70.8 61.5 2 or more 18.2 16.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 358 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Male head of household No 29.0 43.7 *** Yes 71.0 56.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Age of head of household 15-24 years old 12.2 7.6 ** 25-34 years old 33.2 26.2 35-44 years old 20.1 21.7 45-54 years old 18.4 15.5 55-64 years old 8.7 12.6 65+ years old 7.4 16.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Household head education level Preprimary 0.1 1.7 *** Primary 17.9 15.6 Post primary/Vocation 0.3 0.1 Secondary 'A' 21.6 7.9 College (Middle level) 18.0 2.5 University 13.8 1.2 No Schooling 28.3 70.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Gendered household type Both 75.8 71.7 *** Female Only 10.9 21.4 Male Only 13.3 6.7 Child Only 0.0 0.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 359 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Number of Responding Households 496 3,377 Livestock holdings Raises at least one type of livestock No 8.2 4.5 ns Yes 91.8 95.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Household raises cattle No 53.7 68.0 ** Yes 46.3 32.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Household raises goats No 15.9 7.8 ** Yes 84.1 92.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Household raises camels No 72.1 73.5 ns Yes 27.9 26.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 218 1,995 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 360 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Use of agricultural-related financial services Accessed at least one ag-related financial service No 69.3 92.4 *** Yes 30.7 7.6 Total 100.0 100.0 Took out a loan (ag credit, in cash or in-kind) No 93.1 98.9 *** Yes 6.9 1.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Participated in ag-related savings scheme No 69.7 93.2 *** Yes 30.3 6.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Insured ag production against loss (insurance) No 98.2 99.6 ** Yes 1.8 0.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 241 2,123 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 361 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Access to community-based savings or credit groups HH participates in group-based savings,microfinance or lending programs No 86.4 95.4 *** Yes 13.6 4.6 Total 100.0 100.0 HH participates in group-based savings programs No 88.4 97.1 *** Yes 11.6 2.9 Total 100.0 100.0 HH participates in group-based credit programs No 94.1 97.4 * Yes 5.9 2.6 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 493 3,371 Adoption of targeted value chain practices Practiced at least one of the promoted VC activities No 78.2 84.6 ns Yes 21.8 15.4 Total 100.0 100.0 n 82 574 Contract farming No 97.0 98.4 ns Yes 3.0 1.6 Total 100.0 100.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 362 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Selling products via farmer associations No 93.6 96.4 ns Yes 6.4 3.6 Total 100.0 100.0 Sorting and grading No 96.3 95.9 ns Yes 3.7 4.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Bulking No 95.5 94.4 ns Yes 4.5 5.6 Total 100.0 100.0 Improved record keeping, budgeting and financial mgmt No 100.0 97.6 ns Yes 0.0 2.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Use of training and extension services No 96.3 99.1 ns Yes 3.7 0.9 Total 100.0 100.0 n 82 570 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 363 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Targeted Fodder Practices Use of improved pasture inputs (e.g., quality seeds) No 12.4 82.4 ** Yes 87.6 17.6 Total 100.0 100.0 Use of mechanized pasture harvesting and baling tech No 66.4 94.9 ns Yes 33.6 5.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Construction/use of hay stores by farmer org No 100.0 92.1 ns Yes 0.0 7.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Use of fodder seeds No 66.4 84.4 ns Yes 33.6 15.6 Total 100.0 100.0 Use of harvesting/drying/packaging/storage/marketing tech No 100.0 88.2 ns Yes 0.0 11.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 3 23 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 364 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Used at least one improved crop and/or NRM practice No 0.0 33.6 ns Yes 100.0 66.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Improved/certified seed No 43.9 77.2 * Yes 56.1 22.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Seedling production and transplantation No 88.7 98.7 *** Yes 11.3 1.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Crop rotation No 60.8 94.9 *** Yes 39.2 5.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Kitchen gardens using sunken pits No 84.1 95.6 ns Yes 15.9 4.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Organic manure No 66.2 77.7 ns Yes 33.8 22.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Adoption of targeted improved crop management/NRM practices - cowpea Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 365 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Soil testing No 100.0 99.6 ns Yes 0.0 0.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Application of inoculant No 100.0 98.8 ns Yes 0.0 1.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Drip or sprinkler irrigation tech No 100.0 95.1 ns Yes 0.0 4.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Rainwater harvesting technologies No 100.0 94.1 ns Yes 0.0 5.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Flood-based farming technologies No 88.7 99.1 ** Yes 11.3 0.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes No 100.0 92.6 ns Yes 0.0 7.4 Total 100.0 100.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 366 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Drought early warning systems or information No 100.0 95.1 ns Yes 0.0 4.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 10 96 Used at least one improved crop and/or NRM practice No 100.0 19.6 ns Yes 0.0 80.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Improved/certified seed No 100.0 71.5 ns Yes 0.0 28.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Seedling production and transplantation No 100.0 93.0 ns Yes 0.0 7.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Crop rotation No 100.0 81.1 ns Yes 0.0 18.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Kitchen gardens using sunken pits No 100.0 98.9 ns Yes 0.0 1.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Adoption of targeted improved crop management/NRM practices - greengram Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 367 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Organic manure No 100.0 73.8 ns Yes 0.0 26.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Soil testing No 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Application of inoculant No 100.0 97.2 ns Yes 0.0 2.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Drip or sprinkler irrigation tech No 100.0 98.1 ns Yes 0.0 1.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Rainwater harvesting technologies No 100.0 97.9 ns Yes 0.0 2.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Flood-based farming technologies No 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 368 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes No 100.0 94.0 ns Yes 0.0 6.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Drought early warning systems or information No 100.0 85.6 ns Yes 0.0 14.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 1 38 Used at least one improved crop and/or NRM practice No 57.4 32.5 ns Yes 42.6 67.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Improved/certified seed No 100.0 75.5 ns Yes 0.0 24.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Seedling production and transplantation No 100.0 95.6 ns Yes 0.0 4.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Crop rotation No 57.4 82.3 ns Yes 42.6 17.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Adoption of targeted improved crop management/NRM practices - sorghum Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 369 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Kitchen gardens using sunken pits No 100.0 96.1 ns Yes 0.0 3.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Organic manure No 57.4 82.3 ns Yes 42.6 17.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Soil testing No 100.0 96.6 ns Yes 0.0 3.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Application of inoculant No 100.0 98.6 ns Yes 0.0 1.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Drip or sprinkler irrigation tech No 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Rainwater harvesting technologies No 100.0 98.6 ns Yes 0.0 1.4 Total 100.0 100.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 370 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Flood-based farming technologies No 100.0 98.3 ns Yes 0.0 1.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes No 100.0 91.8 ns Yes 0.0 8.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Drought early warning systems or information No 100.0 94.0 ns Yes 0.0 6.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 2 70 Adoption of targeted improved PHH/storage practices - sorghum Aflatoxin prevention and control No 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers during transport No 100.0 96.8 ns Yes 0.0 3.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Well-equipped food storage structures No 100.0 96.7 ns Yes 0.0 3.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 371 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Temperature and humidity control No 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Solar drying for grains and pulses No 0.0 50.0 ns Yes 100.0 50.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Used at least one improved storage practices No 0.0 43.6 ns Yes 100.0 56.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 1 30 Adoption of targeted livestock management practices - cattle Improved livestock breeds/species No 91.2 98.2 ** Yes 8.8 1.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Livestock health services and products No 77.6 76.7 ns Yes 22.4 23.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Improved shelters No 91.5 91.6 ns Yes 8.5 8.4 Total 100.0 100.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 372 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Improved calving techniques No 92.4 99.0 *** Yes 7.6 1.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Improved milking techniques No 98.5 99.3 ns Yes 1.5 0.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Nutritious pasture varieties No 90.2 98.2 *** Yes 9.8 1.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Utilization of set grazing areas No 72.9 78.6 ns Yes 27.1 21.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Improved fodder production No 94.2 99.0 ** Yes 5.8 1.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Solarized boreholes for livestock No 95.3 95.9 ns Yes 4.7 4.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 373 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Water pans for livestock No 85.7 93.1 * Yes 14.3 6.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Sand dams for livestock No 91.7 95.5 ns Yes 8.3 4.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Rock catchments for livestock No 96.1 97.7 ns Yes 3.9 2.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Used at least one improved livestock practice No 28.8 45.1 ** Yes 71.2 54.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 104 830 Adoption of targeted livestock management practices - goats Improved livestock breeds/species No 97.1 98.7 ns Yes 2.9 1.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Livestock health services and products No 82.0 87.6 ns Yes 18.0 12.4 Total 100.0 100.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 374 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Improved shelters No 88.7 88.6 ns Yes 11.3 11.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Improved calving techniques No 100.0 100.0 ns Yes 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Improved milking techniques No 100.0 99.6 ns Yes 0.0 0.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Nutritious pasture varieties No 95.7 97.9 ns Yes 4.3 2.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Utilization of set grazing areas No 75.7 80.7 ns Yes 24.3 19.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Improved fodder production No 98.8 99.2 ns Yes 1.2 0.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 375 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Solarized boreholes for livestock No 95.7 97.0 ns Yes 4.3 3.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Water pans for livestock No 88.1 95.1 ** Yes 11.9 4.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Sand dams for livestock No 93.1 97.1 * Yes 6.9 2.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Rock catchments for livestock No 96.6 98.2 ns Yes 3.4 1.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Used at least one improved livestock practice No 40.7 54.0 ** Yes 59.3 46.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 186 1,820 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 376 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Adoption of targeted livestock management practices - camels Improved livestock breeds/species No 100.0 99.4 ns Yes 0.0 0.6 Total 100.0 100.0 Livestock health services and products No 93.3 88.3 ns Yes 6.7 11.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Improved shelters No 96.0 92.6 ns Yes 4.0 7.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Improved calving techniques No 100.0 99.8 ns Yes 0.0 0.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Improved milking techniques No 98.5 99.7 ns Yes 1.5 0.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Nutritious pasture varieties No 100.0 97.8 ns Yes 0.0 2.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 377 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Utilization of set grazing areas No 64.8 74.1 ns Yes 35.2 25.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Improved fodder production No 100.0 99.3 ns Yes 0.0 0.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Solarized boreholes for livestock No 98.2 94.3 ns Yes 1.8 5.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Water pans for livestock No 85.6 95.0 * Yes 14.4 5.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Sand dams for livestock No 95.5 97.0 ns Yes 4.5 3.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Rock catchments for livestock No 94.8 97.0 ns Yes 5.2 3.0 Total 100.0 100.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 378 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Used at least one improved livestock practice No 50.0 51.3 ns Yes 50.0 48.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 76 647 Resilience Absorptive capacity index 0-25th percentile 8.4 34.1 *** 26-50th percentile 15.4 25.7 51-75th percentile 26.5 22.1 76-100th percentile 49.7 18.0 Total 100.0 100.0 n 493 3,369 Adaptive capacity index 0-25th percentile 7.6 31.9 *** 26-50th percentile 10.9 25.5 51-75th percentile 21.6 22.8 76-100th percentile 59.9 19.8 Total 100.0 100.0 n 493 3,368 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 379 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - Combined RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Combined RFSA Areas Transformative capacity index 0-25th percentile 5.9 28.4 *** 26-50th percentile 13.7 24.4 51-75th percentile 33.9 26.9 76-100th percentile 46.5 20.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 493 3,371 Impact of COVID-19 on household livelihood/food security HH livelihood impacted by COVID-19 No 49.5 49.3 ns Yes 50.5 50.7 Total 100.0 100.0 HH food security impacted by COVID-19 No 51.1 41.5 ** Yes 48.9 58.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 474 3,287 NOTES: Results not reported when total sample size across FIES groups < 30. FIES food security categories based on discrete assignment of the FIES Raw Score (0-3 = Food Secure, 4-6 = Moderately Food Insecure, 7-8= Severely Food Insecure). a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (FIES groups) and the disaggregate variables (household characteristics and practices). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant, n/a=unable to test/no difference between groups. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 380 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Percentage of households by FIES groups 12.4 87.6 1,974 9.4 90.7 979 15.7 84.3 995 Socio-economic characteristics Number of children under 5 years 0 41.5 38.8 ns 33.6 36.0 ns 46.5 41.9 ns 1 38.5 34.6 48.9 36.7 31.9 32.3 2 17.5 22.4 15.6 23.2 18.6 21.4 3 or more 2.5 4.2 1.9 4.1 2.9 4.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of children 5-17 years 0 29.4 19.8 ns 27.9 16.2 ns 30.4 24.0 ns 1 18.0 18.7 20.9 21.1 16.1 15.9 2 17.8 20.6 14.6 22.7 19.8 18.2 3 16.1 16.4 16.6 17.6 15.7 15.0 4 or more 18.8 24.5 20.0 22.4 18.1 26.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of adult females (18+) 0 8.7 4.5 ns 4.1 3.2 ns 11.6 6.1 ns 1 72.3 76.6 76.9 80.3 69.4 72.4 2 or more 19.0 18.8 19.0 16.6 19.0 21.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of adult males (18+) 0 10.2 15.8 * 6.3 16.7 * 12.6 14.8 ns 1 71.2 61.9 76.5 62.1 67.9 61.7 2 or more 18.6 22.3 17.2 21.3 19.5 23.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Male head of household No 20.1 36.1 *** 19.8 38.1 ** 20.2 33.8 ** Yes 79.9 63.9 80.2 61.9 79.8 66.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Age of head of household 15-24 years old 7.9 4.1 ns 9.1 3.3 ns 7.1 5.0 ns 25-34 years old 26.1 23.3 26.5 22.5 25.9 24.2 35-44 years old 27.2 25.8 29.0 26.7 26.0 24.7 45-54 years old 12.5 15.5 11.5 15.2 13.1 15.8 55-64 years old 14.2 15.1 13.0 14.3 14.9 16.0 65+ years old 12.2 16.2 10.9 17.9 13.1 14.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table A7.1b. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS - Total Marsabit Isiolo Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 381 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1b. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS - Total Marsabit Isiolo Household head education level Preprimary 0.4 0.9 *** 0.9 1.0 *** 0.0 0.8 *** Primary 21.8 16.0 15.2 6.5 26.0 26.9 Post primary/Vocation 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 Secondary 'A' 16.5 5.9 7.1 3.7 22.4 8.5 College (Middle level) 9.5 1.4 6.2 1.0 11.6 1.9 University 6.8 0.6 5.8 0.2 7.5 1.0 No Schooling 44.9 75.1 64.7 87.5 32.3 61.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Gendered household type Both 81.1 79.7 ns 89.6 80.2 ns 75.8 79.1 ns Female Only 10.2 15.8 6.3 16.6 12.6 14.8 Male Only 8.7 4.5 4.1 3.1 11.6 6.1 Child Only 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 274 1,700 96 883 178 817 Livestock holdings Raises at least one type of livestock No 5.8 4.0 ns 0.9 1.7 ns 12.1 8.5 ns Yes 94.2 96.0 99.1 98.3 87.9 91.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Household raises cattle No 55.3 59.6 ns 51.6 61.0 ns 60.1 57.0 ns Yes 44.7 40.4 48.4 39.0 39.9 43.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Household raises goats No 10.7 8.0 ns 4.4 3.6 ns 18.9 16.5 ns Yes 89.3 92.0 95.6 96.4 81.1 83.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Household raises camels No 53.4 49.9 ns 29.4 28.9 ns 84.7 90.3 ns Yes 46.6 50.1 70.6 71.1 15.3 9.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 153 1,123 82 721 71 402 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 382 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1b. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS - Total Marsabit Isiolo Use of agricultural-related financial services Accessed at least one ag-related financial service No 84.6 89.7 ns 90.0 93.6 ns 77.9 82.3 ns Yes 15.4 10.3 10.0 6.4 22.1 17.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Took out a loan (ag credit, in cash or in-kind) No 96.6 98.3 ns 97.6 98.0 ns 95.4 99.0 * Yes 3.4 1.7 2.4 2.0 4.6 1.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Participated in ag-related savings scheme No 85.6 91.3 ns 91.2 95.6 ns 78.7 83.1 ns Yes 14.4 8.7 8.8 4.4 21.3 16.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Insured ag production against loss (insurance) No 100.0 99.6 ns 100.0 99.5 ns 100.0 99.6 ns Yes 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 158 1,147 82 734 76 413 Access to community-based savings or credit groups HH participates in group-based savings,microfinance or lending programs No 94.7 95.8 ns 96.6 97.2 ns 93.5 94.2 ns Yes 5.3 4.2 3.4 2.8 6.5 5.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 HH participates in group-based savings programs No 96.3 97.0 ns 99.3 99.4 ns 94.4 94.4 ns Yes 3.7 3.0 0.7 0.6 5.6 5.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 HH participates in group-based credit programs No 96.3 98.0 ns 96.6 97.8 ns 96.1 98.2 ns Yes 3.7 2.0 3.4 2.2 3.9 1.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 272 1,697 94 880 178 817 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 383 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1b. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS - Total Marsabit Isiolo Adoption of targeted value chain practices Practiced at least one of the promoted VC activities No 82.1 80.2 ns 85.3 77.9 ns 75.3 84.7 ns Yes 17.9 19.8 14.7 22.1 24.7 15.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 n 49 358 31 241 18 117 Contract farming No 100.0 100.0 n/a 100.0 100.0 n/a 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Selling products via farmer associations No 95.0 98.5 ns 100.0 99.2 ns 84.4 97.3 ** Yes 5.0 1.5 0.0 0.8 15.6 2.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sorting and grading No 97.1 92.2 ns 100.0 93.9 ns 90.9 89.0 ns Yes 2.9 7.8 0.0 6.1 9.1 11.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Bulking No 90.0 89.1 ns 85.3 87.0 ns 100.0 93.4 ns Yes 10.0 10.9 14.7 13.0 0.0 6.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved record keeping, budgeting and financial mgmt No 100.0 98.2 ns 100.0 97.8 ns 100.0 99.2 ns Yes 0.0 1.8 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Use of training and extension services No 100.0 98.7 ns 100.0 98.3 ns 100.0 99.6 ns Yes 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 n 49 358 31 241 18 117 Number of Responding Households 1 11 0 9 1 2 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 384 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1b. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS - Total Marsabit Isiolo Adoption of targeted livestock management practices - cattle Improved livestock breeds/species No 97.5 98.7 ns 97.0 98.0 ns 98.4 100.0 * Yes 2.5 1.3 3.0 2.0 1.6 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Livestock health services and products No 84.7 88.9 ns 85.9 86.9 ns 82.8 92.3 ns Yes 15.3 11.1 14.1 13.1 17.2 7.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved shelters No 95.4 96.0 ns 92.5 93.7 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 4.6 4.0 7.5 6.3 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved calving techniques No 95.0 97.8 * 91.8 96.6 * 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 5.0 2.2 8.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved milking techniques No 100.0 99.5 ns 100.0 99.2 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Nutritious pasture varieties No 95.5 97.8 ns 95.4 96.5 ns 95.7 100.0 * Yes 4.5 2.2 4.6 3.5 4.3 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Utilization of set grazing areas No 69.1 68.6 ns 61.4 59.6 ns 81.3 84.4 ns Yes 30.9 31.4 38.6 40.4 18.7 15.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved fodder production No 92.5 99.4 *** 93.2 99.2 * 91.4 99.7 *** Yes 7.5 0.6 6.8 0.8 8.6 0.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Solarized boreholes for livestock No 92.6 93.9 ns 87.9 90.4 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 7.4 6.1 12.1 9.6 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 385 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1b. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS - Total Marsabit Isiolo Water pans for livestock No 93.0 95.7 ns 90.1 93.4 ns 97.5 99.7 ns Yes 7.0 4.3 9.9 6.6 2.5 0.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sand dams for livestock No 97.0 96.3 ns 95.2 96.5 ns 100.0 96.2 ns Yes 3.0 3.7 4.8 3.5 0.0 3.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Rock catchments for livestock No 97.1 97.2 ns 95.3 95.5 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 2.9 2.8 4.7 4.5 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Used at least one improved livestock practice No 42.5 52.9 ns 31.4 39.9 ns 60.0 75.6 ns Yes 57.5 47.1 68.6 60.1 40.0 24.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 65 484 38 300 27 184 Adoption of targeted livestock management practices - goats Improved livestock breeds/species No 97.4 98.5 ns 97.5 97.9 ns 97.2 100.0 * Yes 2.6 1.5 2.5 2.1 2.8 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Livestock health services and products No 86.7 88.9 ns 86.9 90.3 ns 86.5 86.0 ns Yes 13.3 11.1 13.1 9.7 13.5 14.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved shelters No 97.4 93.8 ns 97.5 91.7 ns 97.2 98.4 ns Yes 2.6 6.2 2.5 8.3 2.8 1.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved calving techniques No 100.0 100.0 n/a 100.0 100.0 n/a 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved milking techniques No 100.0 99.5 ns 100.0 99.3 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 386 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1b. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS - Total Marsabit Isiolo Nutritious pasture varieties No 93.4 96.9 ns 96.4 95.7 ns 88.8 99.5 *** Yes 6.6 3.1 3.6 4.3 11.2 0.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Utilization of set grazing areas No 72.1 69.8 ns 61.6 61.4 ns 88.3 88.4 ns Yes 27.9 30.2 38.4 38.6 11.7 11.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved fodder production No 97.8 98.2 ns 100.0 98.0 ns 94.4 98.8 ns Yes 2.2 1.8 0.0 2.0 5.6 1.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Solarized boreholes for livestock No 92.2 93.2 ns 87.1 90.5 ns 100.0 99.4 ns Yes 7.8 6.8 12.9 9.5 0.0 0.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Water pans for livestock No 89.3 93.7 ns 83.2 92.8 ns 98.7 95.6 ns Yes 10.7 6.3 16.8 7.2 1.3 4.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sand dams for livestock No 91.4 94.7 ns 92.1 95.3 ns 90.3 93.1 ns Yes 8.6 5.3 7.9 4.7 9.7 6.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Rock catchments for livestock No 97.2 97.8 ns 95.3 96.9 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 2.8 2.2 4.7 3.1 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Used at least one improved livestock practice No 43.1 48.5 ns 35.1 38.5 ns 55.4 70.7 ns Yes 56.9 51.5 64.9 61.5 44.6 29.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 137 1,030 78 690 59 340 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 387 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1b. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS - Total Marsabit Isiolo Adoption of targeted livestock management practices - camels Improved livestock breeds/species No 100.0 99.2 ns 100.0 99.1 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Livestock health services and products No 92.2 91.6 ns 90.9 91.6 ns 100.0 92.0 ns Yes 7.8 8.4 9.1 8.4 0.0 8.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved shelters No 97.8 93.9 ns 97.4 93.5 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 2.2 6.1 2.6 6.5 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved calving techniques No 100.0 99.7 ns 100.0 99.7 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved milking techniques No 98.2 99.5 ns 97.9 99.5 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 1.8 0.5 2.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Nutritious pasture varieties No 100.0 96.7 ns 100.0 96.5 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 3.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Utilization of set grazing areas No 63.3 66.2 ns 58.0 65.1 ns 95.2 82.7 ns Yes 36.7 33.8 42.0 34.9 4.8 17.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved fodder production No 100.0 99.0 ns 100.0 99.1 ns 100.0 98.0 ns Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Solarized boreholes for livestock No 97.9 92.0 ns 97.5 91.5 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 2.1 8.0 2.5 8.5 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 388 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1b. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS - Total Marsabit Isiolo Water pans for livestock No 85.2 94.1 ns 82.7 93.7 * 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 14.8 5.9 17.3 6.3 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sand dams for livestock No 94.8 96.4 ns 93.9 96.2 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 5.2 3.6 6.1 3.8 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Rock catchments for livestock No 96.2 97.0 ns 95.5 96.8 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 3.8 3.0 4.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Used at least one improved livestock practice No 48.6 48.1 ns 40.8 45.8 ns 95.2 80.7 ns Yes 51.4 51.9 59.2 54.2 4.8 19.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 69 533 57 487 12 46 Resilience Absorptive capacity index 0-25th percentile 10.0 20.5 *** 17.3 29.6 *** 5.5 10.1 ns 26-50th percentile 16.0 24.2 16.6 27.7 15.6 20.2 51-75th percentile 28.2 29.7 29.7 27.4 27.3 32.4 76-100th percentile 45.8 25.6 36.5 15.3 51.6 37.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 n 272 1,697 94 880 178 817 Adaptive capacity index 0-25th percentile 12.7 21.6 *** 26.8 29.6 ns 3.9 12.4 * 26-50th percentile 19.1 29.7 20.7 32.1 18.2 27.0 51-75th percentile 28.6 27.3 23.3 21.5 31.8 34.0 76-100th percentile 39.6 21.4 29.2 16.7 46.1 26.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 n 272 1,697 94 880 178 817 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 389 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1b. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS - Total Marsabit Isiolo Transformative capacity index 0-25th percentile 12.5 26.9 ** 29.9 45.6 * 1.6 5.6 ns 26-50th percentile 15.2 24.9 18.7 23.7 13.0 26.2 51-75th percentile 29.7 22.3 38.5 20.1 24.2 24.7 76-100th percentile 42.7 25.9 12.9 10.6 61.2 43.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 272 1,697 94 880 178 817 Impact of COVID-19 on household livelihood/food security HH livelihood impacted by COVID-19 No 47.6 48.9 ns 55.8 56.9 ns 42.5 40.1 ns Yes 52.4 51.1 44.2 43.1 57.5 59.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 HH food security impacted by COVID-19 No 49.4 38.5 * 57.3 44.2 ns 44.3 32.2 * Yes 50.6 61.5 42.7 55.8 55.7 67.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 265 1,649 92 838 173 811 NOTES: Results not reported when total sample size across FIES groups < 30. FIES food security categories based on discrete assignment of the FIES Raw Score (0-3 = Food Secure, 4-6 = Moderately Food Insecure, 7-8= Severely Food Insecure). a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (FIES groups) and the disaggregate variables (household characteristics and practices). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant, n/a=unable to test/no difference between groups. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 390 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Percentage of households by FIES groups 11.1 88.9 1,899 6.9 93.1 948 19.6 80.4 951 Socio-economic characteristics Number of children under 5 years 0 48.7 40.5 ns 39.8 38.6 ns 55.0 45.1 * 1 34.4 31.9 39.4 31.9 30.9 31.9 2 13.9 22.0 17.0 22.9 11.7 19.9 3 or more 3.0 5.6 3.8 6.6 2.4 3.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of children 5-17 years 0 39.9 22.1 *** 38.0 21.8 ns 41.2 22.6 ** 1 22.9 21.1 25.2 20.3 21.2 22.9 2 14.9 20.2 12.0 21.8 16.9 16.5 3 10.6 15.6 12.3 14.7 9.4 17.7 4 or more 11.8 21.1 12.5 21.4 11.3 20.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of adult females (18+) 0 15.4 8.0 ** 9.5 7.0 * 19.5 10.4 * 1 63.5 77.0 63.2 77.1 63.7 76.7 2 or more 21.1 15.0 27.3 16.0 16.8 12.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of adult males (18+) 0 11.3 24.0 ** 11.5 23.8 ns 11.1 24.4 ** 1 70.7 61.4 67.2 61.4 73.2 61.4 2 or more 18.0 14.6 21.4 14.8 15.7 14.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Male head of household No 33.1 46.8 ** 42.3 47.5 ns 26.6 45.4 *** Yes 66.9 53.2 57.7 52.5 73.4 54.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Age of head of household 15-24 years old 14.3 9.0 ** 21.4 8.5 * 9.2 10.3 ns 25-34 years old 36.6 27.4 38.5 25.7 35.2 31.6 35-44 years old 16.7 20.1 7.2 19.7 23.5 20.8 45-54 years old 21.1 15.6 24.7 15.4 18.6 15.9 55-64 years old 6.2 11.5 3.4 13.0 8.2 8.0 65+ years old 5.1 16.4 4.9 17.7 5.3 13.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 391 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Household head education level Preprimary 0.0 2.0 *** 0.0 2.5 *** 0.0 0.7 *** Primary 16.1 15.5 14.2 12.6 17.4 22.3 Post primary/Vocation 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.2 Secondary 'A' 24.0 8.8 24.8 7.1 23.4 12.7 College (Middle level) 22.0 3.0 23.8 2.3 20.7 4.6 University 17.1 1.5 17.3 1.4 16.9 1.7 No Schooling 20.5 69.2 19.1 74.1 21.5 57.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Gendered household type Both 73.3 68.3 *** 79.0 69.3 ns 69.3 66.0 ** Female Only 11.3 23.7 11.5 23.7 11.1 23.6 Male Only 15.4 7.6 9.5 6.8 19.5 9.6 Child Only 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 222 1,677 48 900 174 777 Livestock holdings Raises at least one type of livestock No 10.8 4.8 ns 4.9 4.0 ns 13.6 6.4 ns Yes 89.2 95.2 95.1 96.0 86.4 93.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Household raises cattle No 52.0 72.6 * 100.0 91.5 ns 29.6 31.3 ns Yes 48.0 27.4 0.0 8.5 70.4 68.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Household raises goats No 21.3 7.8 ** 4.9 4.8 ns 29.0 14.3 * Yes 78.7 92.2 95.1 95.2 71.0 85.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Household raises camels No 92.0 86.7 ns 100.0 87.2 ns 88.3 85.7 ns Yes 8.0 13.3 0.0 12.8 11.7 14.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 65 872 9 420 56 452 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 392 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Use of agricultural-related financial services Accessed at least one ag-related financial service No 56.3 93.7 *** 76.5 97.1 ** 47.2 86.6 *** Yes 43.7 6.3 23.5 2.9 52.8 13.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Took out a loan (ag credit, in cash or in-kind) No 90.1 99.2 *** 100.0 99.8 ns 85.6 97.8 *** Yes 9.9 0.8 0.0 0.2 14.4 2.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Participated in ag-related savings scheme No 56.3 94.2 *** 76.5 97.5 ** 47.2 87.2 *** Yes 43.7 5.8 23.5 2.5 52.8 12.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Insured ag production against loss (insurance) No 96.7 99.7 *** 100.0 99.8 ns 95.3 99.4 ** Yes 3.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 4.7 0.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 83 976 12 473 71 503 Access to community-based savings or credit groups HH participates in group-based savings,microfinance or lending programs No 82.6 95.2 *** 96.9 97.2 ns 72.4 90.8 *** Yes 17.4 4.8 3.1 2.8 27.6 9.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 HH participates in group-based savings programs No 84.7 97.1 *** 97.8 98.7 ns 75.5 93.3 *** Yes 15.3 2.9 2.2 1.3 24.5 6.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 HH participates in group-based credit programs No 93.0 97.1 * 99.1 97.7 ns 88.7 95.9 ** Yes 7.0 2.9 0.9 2.3 11.3 4.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 221 1,674 48 899 173 775 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 393 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Adoption of targeted value chain practices Practiced at least one of the promoted VC activities No 75.0 88.0 ns 100.0 89.9 ns 70.6 84.5 ns Yes 25.0 12.0 0.0 10.1 29.4 15.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 n 33 216 2 96 31 120 Contract farming No 94.5 97.2 ns 100.0 98.5 ns 93.5 94.9 ns Yes 5.5 2.8 0.0 1.5 6.5 5.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Selling products via farmer associations No 92.4 94.7 ns 100.0 94.5 ns 91.1 95.3 ns Yes 7.6 5.3 0.0 5.6 8.9 4.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sorting and grading No 95.7 98.7 ns 100.0 98.5 ns 94.9 99.3 ns Yes 4.3 1.3 0.0 1.5 5.1 0.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Bulking No 100.0 98.5 ns 100.0 99.1 ns 100.0 97.5 ns Yes 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved record keeping, budgeting and financial mgmt No 100.0 97.0 ns 100.0 98.6 ns 100.0 94.1 ns Yes 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 5.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Use of training and extension services No 93.3 99.4 * 100.0 100.0 n/a 92.1 98.4 ns Yes 6.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 7.9 1.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 n 33 212 2 95 31 117 Number of Responding Households 2 12 0 4 2 8 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 394 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Used at least one improved crop and/or NRM practice No 0.0 33.0 ns 0.0 35.8 ns ^ ^ Yes 100.0 67.0 100.0 64.2 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Improved/certified seed No 43.2 76.7 ns 100.0 77.7 ns ^ ^ Yes 56.8 23.3 0.0 22.3 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Seedling production and transplantation No 88.0 98.6 *** 100.0 100.0 n/a ^ ^ Yes 12.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Crop rotation No 61.7 94.9 *** 54.4 94.3 ns ^ ^ Yes 38.3 5.1 45.6 5.7 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Kitchen gardens using sunken pits No 83.0 95.5 ns 45.6 95.9 ** ^ ^ Yes 17.0 4.5 54.4 4.1 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Organic manure No 64.0 77.5 ns 100.0 80.5 ns ^ ^ Yes 36.0 22.5 0.0 19.5 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Soil testing No 100.0 100.0 n/a 100.0 100.0 n/a ^ ^ Yes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Application of inoculant No 100.0 98.8 ns 100.0 98.6 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.4 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Drip or sprinkler irrigation tech No 100.0 95.3 ns 100.0 95.6 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 4.7 0.0 4.4 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Adoption of targeted improved crop management/NRM practices - cowpea Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 395 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Rainwater harvesting technologies No 100.0 93.8 ns 100.0 93.1 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 6.2 0.0 6.9 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Flood-based farming technologies No 88.0 99.0 ** 100.0 98.9 ns ^ ^ Yes 12.0 1.0 0.0 1.1 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes No 100.0 92.3 ns 100.0 91.4 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 7.7 0.0 8.6 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Drought early warning systems or information No 100.0 94.9 ns 100.0 94.4 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.6 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Number of Responding Households 8 86 2 71 6 15 Used at least one improved crop and/or NRM practice No 100.0 16.8 ns ^ ^ ^ ^ Yes 0.0 83.2 ^ ^ ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Improved/certified seed No 100.0 71.0 ns ^ ^ ^ ^ Yes 0.0 29.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Seedling production and transplantation ns No 100.0 92.5 ns ^ ^ ^ ^ Yes 0.0 7.5 ^ ^ ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Crop rotation No 100.0 80.0 ns ^ ^ ^ ^ Yes 0.0 20.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Kitchen gardens using sunken pits No 100.0 100.0 n/a ^ ^ ^ ^ Yes 0.0 0.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Adoption of targeted improved crop management/NRM practices - greengram IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 396 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Organic manure ns No 100.0 73.4 ns ^ ^ ^ ^ Yes 0.0 26.6 ^ ^ ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Soil testing No 100.0 100.0 n/a ^ ^ ^ ^ Yes 0.0 0.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Application of inoculant No 100.0 97.0 ns ^ ^ ^ ^ Yes 0.0 3.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Drip or sprinkler irrigation tech No 100.0 100.0 n/a ^ ^ ^ ^ Yes 0.0 0.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Rainwater harvesting technologies No 100.0 97.8 ns ^ ^ ^ ^ Yes 0.0 2.2 ^ ^ ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Flood-based farming technologies No 100.0 100.0 n/a ^ ^ ^ ^ Yes 0.0 0.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes No 100.0 93.6 ns ^ ^ ^ ^ Yes 0.0 6.4 ^ ^ ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Drought early warning systems or information No 100.0 84.7 ns ^ ^ ^ ^ Yes 0.0 15.3 ^ ^ ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ ^ ^ Number of Responding Households 1 31 0 29 1 2 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 397 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Used at least one improved crop and/or NRM practice No 57.4 31.9 ns 57.4 32.5 ns ^ ^ Yes 42.6 68.1 42.6 67.5 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Improved/certified seed No 100.0 75.5 ns 100.0 75.5 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 24.5 0.0 24.5 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Seedling production and transplantation No 100.0 95.6 ns 100.0 95.6 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 4.4 0.0 4.4 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Crop rotation No 57.4 82.3 ns 57.4 82.3 ns ^ ^ Yes 42.6 17.7 42.6 17.7 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Kitchen gardens using sunken pits No 100.0 96.1 ns 100.0 96.1 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.9 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Organic manure No 57.4 82.3 ns 57.4 82.3 ns ^ ^ Yes 42.6 17.7 42.6 17.7 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Soil testing No 100.0 96.6 ns 100.0 96.6 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 3.4 0.0 3.4 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Application of inoculant No 100.0 98.6 ns 100.0 98.6 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Drip or sprinkler irrigation tech No 100.0 100.0 n/a 100.0 100.0 n/a ^ ^ Yes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Adoption of targeted improved crop management/NRM practices - sorghum IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 398 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Rainwater harvesting technologies No 100.0 98.6 ns 100.0 98.6 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Flood-based farming technologies No 100.0 98.3 ns 100.0 98.3 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.7 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes No 100.0 91.8 ns 100.0 91.8 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 8.2 0.0 8.2 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Drought early warning systems or information No 100.0 94.0 ns 100.0 94.0 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 6.0 0.0 6.0 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Number of Responding Households 2 70 2 70 0 0 Adoption of targeted improved PHH/storage practices - sorghum Aflatoxin prevention and control No 100.0 100.0 n/a 100.0 100.0 n/a ^ ^ Yes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers during transport No 100.0 96.8 ns 100.0 96.8 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.2 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Well-equipped food storage structures No 100.0 96.7 ns 100.0 96.7 ns ^ ^ Yes 0.0 3.3 0.0 3.3 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Temperature and humidity control No 100.0 100.0 n/a 100.0 100.0 n/a ^ ^ Yes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Solar drying for grains and pulses No 0.0 50.0 ns 0.0 50.0 ns ^ ^ Yes 100.0 50.0 100.0 50.0 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 399 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Used at least one improved storage practices No 57.4 32.5 ns 0.0 43.6 ns ^ ^ Yes 42.6 67.5 100.0 56.4 ^ ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ ^ Number of Responding Households 1 30 1 30 0 0 Adoption of targeted livestock management practices - cattle Improved livestock breeds/species No 84.9 97.7 ** ^ 100.0 84.9 97.1 ** Yes 15.1 2.3 ^ 0.0 15.1 2.9 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Livestock health services and products No 70.5 66.8 ns ^ 90.5 70.5 60.4 ns Yes 29.5 33.2 ^ 9.5 29.5 39.6 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved shelters No 87.6 88.0 ns ^ 77.2 87.6 90.8 ns Yes 12.4 12.0 ^ 22.8 12.4 9.2 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved calving techniques No 89.8 100.0 *** ^ 100.0 89.8 100.0 *** Yes 10.2 0.0 ^ 0.0 10.2 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved milking techniques No 97.0 99.2 ns ^ 100.0 97.0 99.0 ns Yes 3.0 0.8 ^ 0.0 3.0 1.0 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Nutritious pasture varieties No 84.9 98.5 *** ^ 95.2 84.9 99.4 *** Yes 15.1 1.5 ^ 4.8 15.1 0.6 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Utilization of set grazing areas No 76.6 86.9 * ^ 97.5 76.6 84.1 ns Yes 23.4 13.1 ^ 2.5 23.4 15.9 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved fodder production No 95.9 98.6 ns ^ 95.1 95.9 99.6 * Yes 4.1 1.4 ^ 5.0 4.1 0.4 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 400 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Solarized boreholes for livestock No 98.0 97.5 ns ^ 100.0 98.0 96.9 ns Yes 2.0 2.5 ^ 0.0 2.0 3.1 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Water pans for livestock No 78.5 90.9 ** ^ 100.0 78.5 88.5 * Yes 21.5 9.1 ^ 0.0 21.5 11.5 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sand dams for livestock No 86.5 94.8 * ^ 100.0 86.5 93.4 ns Yes 13.5 5.2 ^ 0.0 13.5 6.6 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Rock catchments for livestock No 95.1 98.2 ns ^ 100.0 95.1 97.7 ns Yes 4.9 1.8 ^ 0.0 4.9 2.3 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Used at least one improved livestock practice No 15.4 38.7 *** ^ 58.0 15.4 33.5 ** Yes 84.6 61.3 ^ 42.1 84.6 66.5 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 39 346 0 35 39 311 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 401 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Adoption of targeted livestock management practices - goats Improved livestock breeds/species No 96.7 98.8 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a 94.7 95.9 ns Yes 3.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 5.3 4.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Livestock health services and products No 76.3 86.8 * 80.7 95.2 ns 73.5 66.4 ns Yes 23.7 13.2 19.3 4.8 26.5 33.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved shelters No 78.2 85.6 ns 64.2 83.1 ns 86.9 91.8 ns Yes 21.8 14.4 35.8 16.9 13.1 8.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved calving techniques No 100.0 99.9 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a 100.0 99.7 ns Yes 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved milking techniques No 100.0 99.7 ns 100.0 99.6 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Nutritious pasture varieties No 98.4 98.4 ns 100.0 97.9 ns 97.4 99.8 * Yes 1.6 1.6 0.0 2.1 2.6 0.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Utilization of set grazing areas No 80.0 86.7 ns 90.6 89.1 ns 73.4 81.1 ns Yes 20.0 13.3 9.4 10.9 26.6 18.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved fodder production No 100.0 99.8 ns 100.0 99.8 ns 100.0 99.7 ns Yes 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Solarized boreholes for livestock No 100.0 99.1 ns 100.0 99.9 ns 100.0 97.1 ns Yes 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 402 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Water pans for livestock No 86.6 95.9 ** 100.0 97.1 ns 78.3 92.8 ** Yes 13.4 4.1 0.0 2.9 21.7 7.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sand dams for livestock No 95.2 98.4 ns 100.0 100.0 n/a 92.2 94.6 ns Yes 4.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 7.8 5.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Rock catchments for livestock No 96.0 98.3 ns 100.0 98.7 ns 93.5 97.6 * Yes 4.0 1.7 0.0 1.3 6.5 2.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Used at least one improved livestock practice No 37.8 57.0 * 54.8 65.3 ns 27.2 36.9 ns Yes 62.2 43.0 45.2 34.7 72.8 63.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 49 790 8 396 41 394 Adoption of targeted livestock management practices - camels Improved livestock breeds/species No 100.0 100.0 n/a ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.0 ^ 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Livestock health services and products No 100.0 81.3 ns ^ 90.4 100.0 63.4 * Yes 0.0 18.7 ^ 9.6 0.0 36.6 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved shelters No 84.9 89.7 ns ^ 86.0 84.9 97.0 ns Yes 15.1 10.3 ^ 14.0 15.1 3.0 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved calving techniques No 100.0 100.0 n/a ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.0 ^ 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved milking techniques No 100.0 100.0 n/a ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.0 ^ 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 403 Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Nutritious pasture varieties No 100.0 100.0 n/a ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.0 ^ 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Utilization of set grazing areas No 74.3 90.4 ns ^ 95.5 74.3 80.5 ns Yes 25.7 9.6 ^ 4.5 25.7 19.5 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Improved fodder production No 100.0 100.0 n/a ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 n/a Yes 0.0 0.0 ^ 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Solarized boreholes for livestock No 100.0 98.9 ns ^ 100.0 100.0 96.8 ns Yes 0.0 1.1 ^ 0.0 0.0 3.2 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Water pans for livestock No 88.1 96.9 ns ^ 98.1 88.1 94.6 ns Yes 11.9 3.1 ^ 1.9 11.9 5.4 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sand dams for livestock No 100.0 98.3 ns ^ 100.0 100.0 94.9 ns Yes 0.0 1.7 ^ 0.0 0.0 5.1 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Rock catchments for livestock No 86.2 96.8 ns ^ 97.4 86.2 95.7 * Yes 13.8 3.2 ^ 2.6 13.8 4.3 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Used at least one improved livestock practice No 59.2 58.0 ns ^ 67.5 59.2 39.4 ns Yes 40.8 42.0 ^ 32.5 40.8 60.6 Total 100.0 100.0 ^ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 7 114 0 48 7 66 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 404 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Food Secure Moderate or Severe Insecurity Sig.a n Table A7.1c. Percentage of households by FIES groups, by household characteristics and practices - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Turkana Samburu Resilience Absorptive capacity index 0-25th percentile 7.7 39.7 *** 5.4 45.6 *** 9.3 25.8 *** 26-50th percentile 15.2 26.4 16.7 25.9 14.1 27.6 51-75th percentile 25.7 19.0 36.0 17.5 18.4 22.6 76-100th percentile 51.4 14.9 41.9 11.0 58.2 24.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 n 221 1,672 48 898 173 774 Adaptive capacity index 0-25th percentile 5.2 36.2 *** 3.7 43.2 *** 6.2 19.8 *** 26-50th percentile 7.0 23.7 7.2 24.9 6.9 20.9 51-75th percentile 18.4 20.9 21.6 18.7 16.1 26.0 76-100th percentile 69.4 19.2 67.5 13.2 70.8 33.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 n 221 1,671 48 898 173 773 Transformative capacity index 0-25th percentile 2.8 29.0 *** 1.8 33.6 ** 3.5 18.3 *** 26-50th percentile 12.9 24.2 10.6 23.0 14.6 27.0 51-75th percentile 35.9 28.9 52.8 30.6 23.9 24.8 76-100th percentile 48.3 17.9 34.8 12.8 58.0 29.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 221 1,674 48 899 173 775 Impact of COVID-19 on household livelihood/food security HH livelihood impacted by COVID-19 No 50.4 49.4 ns 48.4 50.2 ns 51.9 47.6 ns Yes 49.6 50.6 51.6 49.8 48.1 52.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 HH food security impacted by COVID-19 No 51.9 42.8 * 50.1 43.8 ns 53.2 40.4 * Yes 48.1 57.2 49.9 56.2 46.8 59.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Responding Households 209 1,638 48 884 161 754 NOTES: Results not reported when total sample size across FIES groups < 30. FIES food security categories based on discrete assignment of the FIES Raw Score (0-3 = Food Secure, 4-6 = Moderately Food Insecure, 7-8= Severely Food Insecure). a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (FIES groups) and the disaggregate variables (household characteristics and practices). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant, n/a=unable to test/no difference between groups. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 405 Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Household background characteristics Residence Rural 11.8 15.7 72.6 100.0 1,014 * 15.4 18.4 66.2 100.0 691 ** 2.4 8.4 89.1 100.0 323 ns Urban 1.8 14.6 83.6 100.0 99 3.9 30.0 66.1 100.0 29 1.1 9.7 89.2 100.0 70 Gendered household type Both 9.8 15.8 74.4 100.0 949 ns 13.7 19.4 66.9 100.0 610 ns 2.1 8.7 89.1 100.0 339 ns Female Only 18.0 13.2 68.8 100.0 124 23.9 15.7 60.4 100.0 87 0.0 5.4 94.6 100.0 37 Male Only 9.6 16.2 74.2 100.0 40 11.8 16.1 72.1 100.0 23 5.9 16.4 77.7 100.0 17 Child only Household head sex Male 8.9 15.9 75.2 100.0 771 ns 12.2 20.1 67.7 100.0 485 ns 2.6 7.6 89.8 100.0 286 ns Female 14.7 14.8 70.5 100.0 342 20.6 16.1 63.2 100.0 235 0.9 11.6 87.5 100.0 107 Household head educational level Never attended school 12.3 16.8 71.0 100.0 893 * 16.4 19.0 64.6 100.0 625 ns 1.4 10.9 87.7 100.0 268 ns Pre-primary or primary 4.2 13.6 82.2 100.0 131 4.0 24.6 71.4 100.0 55 4.3 5.3 90.4 100.0 76 Post-primary/vocational or secondary 5.4 2.1 92.5 100.0 58 7.0 2.3 90.7 100.0 28 3.9 1.9 94.3 100.0 30 College or University 0.0 10.5 89.5 100.0 31 0.0 20.9 79.1 100.0 12 0.0 3.2 96.8 100.0 19 Household food security Household is moderately or severely food insecure No 3.1 7.3 89.6 100.0 140 *** 3.6 10.6 85.8 100.0 75 ** 2.5 3.2 94.3 100.0 65 ns Yes 11.7 16.6 71.7 100.0 973 16.1 19.7 64.2 100.0 645 2.0 9.8 88.2 100.0 328 Household poverty status Household living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line No 6.6 9.5 83.9 100.0 316 * 9.9 12.4 77.8 100.0 193 ns 1.8 5.2 93.0 100.0 123 ns Yes 12.3 17.9 69.8 100.0 797 16.6 21.0 62.4 100.0 527 2.3 10.7 87.1 100.0 270 Agricultural assets Raises any of the targeted livestock commodities (cattle, goats, camels) No 2.6 19.2 78.2 100.0 64 ns 13.1 11.8 75.1 100.0 17 ns 0.0 21.0 79.0 100.0 47 ns Yes 11.2 15.3 73.5 100.0 1,049 14.9 19.0 66.1 100.0 703 2.5 6.7 90.8 100.0 346 Household raises cattle No 12.0 16.6 71.4 100.0 660 ns 16.6 20.0 63.4 100.0 428 ns 2.8 9.6 87.7 100.0 232 ns Yes 8.6 13.9 77.5 100.0 453 12.3 17.0 70.7 100.0 292 1.1 7.4 91.5 100.0 161 Household raises goats No 2.2 18.6 79.2 100.0 104 ns 7.0 14.1 78.9 100.0 29 ns 0.7 20.0 79.3 100.0 75 * Yes 11.5 15.2 73.2 100.0 1,009 15.2 19.0 65.8 100.0 691 2.5 5.8 91.8 100.0 318 Household raises camels No 9.5 12.9 77.6 100.0 571 ns 21.6 19.6 58.9 100.0 219 * 2.2 8.9 88.9 100.0 352 ns Yes 11.8 18.0 70.2 100.0 542 12.4 18.6 69.0 100.0 501 1.4 7.3 91.2 100.0 41 Agricultural financial services Accessed agri-related financial services No 11.3 16.5 72.2 100.0 977 * 15.2 19.1 65.7 100.0 662 ns 1.8 10.2 88.0 100.0 315 ns Yes 6.3 8.2 85.4 100.0 136 10.8 15.6 73.6 100.0 58 3.2 3.1 93.7 100.0 78 Accessed agri-related loan No 10.8 15.7 73.5 100.0 1,088 ns 15.0 19.2 65.8 100.0 703 ns 2.1 8.7 89.2 100.0 385 ns Yes 7.7 6.0 86.3 100.0 25 10.6 3.6 85.8 100.0 17 0.0 12.5 87.5 100.0 8 Participated in agri-savings scheme No 11.2 16.5 72.3 100.0 997 * 15.0 19.0 65.9 100.0 677 ns 1.8 10.4 87.8 100.0 320 ns Yes 6.5 6.9 86.7 100.0 116 12.3 15.8 71.9 100.0 43 3.4 2.2 94.4 100.0 73 Value chain interventions Household adopted at least one value chain intervention No 10.5 15.0 74.5 100.0 1,043 ns 14.8 18.3 66.9 100.0 662 ns 2.0 8.5 89.5 100.0 381 ns Yes 13.8 23.4 62.8 100.0 70 15.8 25.7 58.5 100.0 58 5.8 14.1 80.2 100.0 12 Any crop or livestock value chain Contract farming No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Selling products through community farmer associations No 10.8 15.6 73.6 100.0 1,107 ns 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 719 ns 2.1 8.9 89.0 100.0 388 ns Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 5 Sorting and grading No 10.9 15.3 73.8 100.0 1,094 ns 15.2 18.6 66.2 100.0 705 ns 2.1 8.6 89.2 100.0 389 ns Yes 0.0 27.7 72.3 100.0 19 0.0 32.6 67.4 100.0 15 0.0 15.2 84.8 100.0 4 Bulking No 10.3 15.2 74.5 100.0 1,075 * 14.5 18.6 66.9 100.0 687 ns 1.9 8.6 89.5 100.0 388 * Yes 23.2 24.6 52.2 100.0 38 23.6 24.4 52.0 100.0 33 20.0 25.8 54.2 100.0 5 Use of improved record keeping, budgeting and financial management No 10.8 15.3 73.9 100.0 1,107 ns 15.0 18.7 66.3 100.0 715 ns 2.1 8.5 89.4 100.0 392 * Yes 0.0 51.0 49.0 100.0 6 0.0 41.8 58.2 100.0 5 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 1 Table A7.2a. Percentage of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable food consumption score (FCS) by household background characteristics - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 406 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Table A7.2a. Percentage of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable food consumption score (FCS) by household background characteristics - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo Use of training and extension services No 10.7 15.6 73.7 100.0 1,106 ns 14.9 19.0 66.1 100.0 713 ns 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes 14.9 0.0 85.1 100.0 7 14.9 0.0 85.1 100.0 7 Fodder production value chain Use of improved pasture inputs (e.g., quality seeds) No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Use of mechanized pasture harvesting and baling technologies No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Construction and use of hay stores by farmer organizations No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Use of fodder seeds No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Use of harvesting, drying, packaging, storage, and marketing technologies No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Improved livestock management practices Used improved livestock breeds/species No 10.6 15.3 74.1 100.0 1,084 ns 14.9 18.6 66.5 100.0 693 ns 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 391 ns Yes 15.0 23.6 61.3 100.0 29 16.2 25.4 58.4 100.0 27 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 Used livestock health services and products No 10.8 15.7 73.4 100.0 998 ns 15.0 19.2 65.8 100.0 630 ns 2.4 8.7 88.9 100.0 368 ns Yes 9.7 14.2 76.1 100.0 115 14.0 16.4 69.6 100.0 90 0.0 9.0 91.0 100.0 25 Used improved livestock shelters No 9.6 15.7 74.7 100.0 1,049 ** 13.6 19.3 67.1 100.0 660 * 2.1 8.8 89.0 100.0 389 ns Yes 28.3 12.6 59.0 100.0 64 30.0 13.4 56.6 100.0 60 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 4 Used improved calving techniques No 10.8 15.3 73.9 100.0 1,102 ** 15.1 18.6 66.4 100.0 709 * 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes 4.1 37.4 58.5 100.0 11 4.1 37.4 58.5 100.0 11 Used improved milking techniques No 10.8 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,107 ns 15.0 18.8 66.2 100.0 714 ns 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes 0.0 28.2 71.8 100.0 6 0.0 28.2 71.8 100.0 6 Used nutritious pasture varieties No 9.3 15.7 75.0 100.0 1,058 *** 13.0 19.2 67.8 100.0 671 *** 2.1 8.9 89.0 100.0 387 ns Yes 36.4 12.5 51.1 100.0 55 40.7 13.9 45.4 100.0 49 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 6 Used set grazing areas No 8.3 14.6 77.0 100.0 768 ** 13.4 19.4 67.2 100.0 416 ns 1.6 8.4 90.0 100.0 352 ns Yes 15.8 17.5 66.8 100.0 345 16.9 18.2 64.9 100.0 304 6.3 11.7 82.0 100.0 41 Used improved fodder production No 10.4 15.7 74.0 100.0 1,088 ns 14.4 19.0 66.6 100.0 702 ns 2.2 8.9 88.9 100.0 386 ns Yes 24.8 10.3 64.9 100.0 25 35.0 14.5 50.5 100.0 18 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 7 Used solarized boreholes for livestock No 10.7 15.6 73.7 100.0 1,027 ns 15.5 19.3 65.2 100.0 636 ns 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 391 ns Yes 10.6 15.3 74.1 100.0 86 10.8 15.6 73.6 100.0 84 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 Used water pans for livestock No 10.1 16.1 73.9 100.0 1,036 ns 14.2 19.7 66.1 100.0 653 ns 2.2 8.9 88.9 100.0 383 ns Yes 19.0 8.6 72.3 100.0 77 22.8 9.5 67.7 100.0 67 0.0 4.4 95.6 100.0 10 Used sand dams for livestock No 11.0 16.3 72.7 100.0 1,046 ** 15.2 19.7 65.2 100.0 677 * 2.3 9.3 88.5 100.0 369 ns Yes 6.0 3.2 90.9 100.0 67 10.1 3.7 86.2 100.0 43 0.0 2.3 97.7 100.0 24 Used rock catchments for livestock No 10.5 15.6 73.9 100.0 1,068 ns 14.9 19.2 66.0 100.0 675 ns 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes 15.7 13.5 70.9 100.0 45 15.7 13.5 70.9 100.0 45 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 407 Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Table A7.2a. Percentage of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable food consumption score (FCS) by household background characteristics - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo Improved post harvest handling and storage practices Used aflatoxin prevention and control No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Used aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers during transportation No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Used well-equipped food storage structures (rodent proof; proper air circulation) No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Applied temperature and humidity control (shed nets, air condition, fans) No 10.7 15.6 73.7 100.0 1,112 ns 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 392 ns Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 Used solar drying for grains and pulses No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,110 ns 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.7 89.2 100.0 390 ns Yes 0.0 32.0 68.0 100.0 3 0.0 32.0 68.0 100.0 3 Improved crop management practices Improved/certified seed No 10.7 15.6 73.7 100.0 1,111 ns 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 719 ns 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 392 ns Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 Seedling production and transplantation No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,110 ns 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.0 8.7 89.4 100.0 390 *** Yes 38.3 29.0 32.7 100.0 3 38.3 29.0 32.7 100.0 3 Kitchen gardens using sunken pits No 10.7 15.6 73.7 100.0 1,112 ns 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 719 ns 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 Use of organic manure No 10.7 15.6 73.7 100.0 1,110 ns 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 719 ns 2.0 8.8 89.2 100.0 391 ns Yes 18.0 0.0 82.0 100.0 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 27.0 0.0 73.0 100.0 2 Soil testing No 10.7 15.5 73.7 100.0 1,112 ns 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 392 ns Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 Application of inoculant No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies No 10.7 15.6 73.7 100.0 1,111 ns 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 719 ns 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 392 ns Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 Use of rainwater harvesting technologies (water pans, rock/roof catchment) No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Use of flood-based farming technologies (spate irrigation) No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Use of drought early warning systems or information No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 408 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Table A7.2a. Percentage of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable food consumption score (FCS) by household background characteristics - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo Improved NRM practices Reseeding degraded lands with drought resistant grass species No 10.7 15.8 73.6 100.0 1,103 ns 14.7 18.9 66.4 100.0 718 * 2.2 9.1 88.7 100.0 385 ns Yes 13.6 0.0 86.4 100.0 10 79.9 0.0 20.1 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 8 Fencing off pasture plots to conserve pasture No 9.6 15.4 75.0 100.0 1,083 *** 13.3 18.8 67.9 100.0 695 *** 2.0 8.8 89.1 100.0 388 ns Yes 52.2 18.9 28.8 100.0 30 57.5 21.4 21.2 100.0 25 12.0 0.0 88.0 100.0 5 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands (soil/water conservation) No 10.1 15.4 74.5 100.0 1,085 * 14.2 18.7 67.1 100.0 694 ns 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 391 ns Yes 33.0 21.7 45.4 100.0 28 36.5 24.0 39.4 100.0 26 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) No 10.5 15.4 74.1 100.0 1,100 ** 14.7 18.7 66.6 100.0 707 * 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes 34.2 31.1 34.6 100.0 13 34.2 31.1 34.6 100.0 13 Use of natural barriers/cover crops (grass strips/crop covers) No 10.5 15.5 74.0 100.0 1,108 *** 14.6 18.9 66.5 100.0 715 *** 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes 66.9 17.8 15.3 100.0 5 66.9 17.8 15.3 100.0 5 Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay or other crop residues No 10.5 15.6 73.9 100.0 1,110 * 14.6 18.9 66.5 100.0 718 * 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 392 ns Yes 62.5 0.0 37.5 100.0 3 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) No 10.7 15.6 73.7 100.0 1,111 ns 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 718 ns 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 Zaï pits (pot-holing) No 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 Yes Use of minimum tillage practices (leave crop residue on soil surface) No 10.7 15.6 73.7 100.0 1,109 ns 14.8 18.9 66.3 100.0 718 ns 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 391 ns Yes 19.7 0.0 80.3 100.0 4 53.6 0.0 46.4 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 Planting nitrogen-fixing trees (acacia) No 10.7 15.6 73.7 100.0 1,111 ns 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 391 ns Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 Household access to group-based credit and/or savings Household participated in group-based savings programs No 10.9 15.8 73.3 100.0 1,069 ns 14.8 19.0 66.2 100.0 715 ns 2.1 8.8 89.0 100.0 354 ns Yes 5.2 6.8 88.0 100.0 44 27.1 0.0 72.9 100.0 5 2.0 7.8 90.2 100.0 39 Household participated in group-based credit programs No 10.9 15.9 73.2 100.0 1,080 ** 15.3 19.2 65.5 100.0 701 * 2.0 9.0 89.0 100.0 379 ns Yes 2.2 2.4 95.5 100.0 33 0.0 3.7 96.3 100.0 19 6.0 0.0 94.0 100.0 14 Household participated in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 11.1 16.0 72.9 100.0 1,049 * 15.2 19.3 65.5 100.0 696 * 2.1 8.8 89.0 100.0 353 ns Yes 3.4 5.7 90.9 100.0 64 5.3 3.0 91.7 100.0 24 2.0 7.7 90.3 100.0 40 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 409 Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Table A7.2a. Percentage of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable food consumption score (FCS) by household background characteristics - CRS RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo Household exposure to COVID-19 impacts Household income/livelihood impacted by COVID-19 No 11.3 14.3 74.4 100.0 623 ns 14.2 17.9 67.8 100.0 434 ns 3.3 4.3 92.4 100.0 189 * Yes 10.0 17.0 73.0 100.0 490 15.9 20.2 63.8 100.0 286 1.2 12.3 86.5 100.0 204 Household access to food impacted by COVID-19 No 12.5 16.8 70.7 100.0 482 ns 16.1 20.8 63.0 100.0 340 ns 2.9 6.1 91.0 100.0 142 ns Yes 9.4 14.6 76.0 100.0 631 13.9 17.1 69.0 100.0 380 1.7 10.2 88.1 100.0 251 Household member contracted COVID-19 virus in 90 days prior to survey No 10.7 15.5 73.9 100.0 1,101 ns 14.8 18.7 66.5 100.0 712 ns 2.1 8.8 89.0 100.0 389 ns Yes 13.8 25.0 61.1 100.0 12 21.4 38.8 39.8 100.0 8 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 4 Total 10.7 15.5 73.8 100.0 1,113 14.9 18.9 66.2 100.0 720 2.1 8.8 89.1 100.0 393 NOTES: FCS is a composite score based on dietary diversity, food frequency and relative nutritional value of the different food groups. Values are then weighted and summed to obtain the FCS. Households are categorized into consumption groups based on pre-established thresholds. A modified threshold was used to account for the local diet which consists of daily oil and sugar consumption: Poor (0 - 28); borderline (28.5 - 42); and acceptable (>42). For more details refer to Supplement to Part 1 - BHA Baseline/Endline Questionnaire and Indicator Tabulations for Resilience Food Security Activities. a Significance tests (chi square) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (FCS group) and the disaggregate variable (e.g, sex, household poverty status, etc.). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30. Analytical sample includes a subsample of cases for which there are no missing values on any of the variables. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 410 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Household background characteristics Residence Rural 45.2 20.9 33.8 100.0 827 ** 53.5 19.3 27.2 100.0 403 ** 27.1 24.6 48.3 100.0 424 *** Urban 23.0 24.2 52.8 100.0 114 27.2 35.4 37.4 100.0 47 16.4 6.4 77.2 100.0 67 Gendered household type Both 41.6 20.8 37.6 100.0 718 ns 50.8 20.1 29.1 100.0 350 ns 22.4 22.2 55.4 100.0 368 ns Female Only 43.2 24.1 32.6 100.0 182 46.3 24.6 29.1 100.0 87 35.7 23.1 41.2 100.0 95 Male Only 39.7 19.5 40.8 100.0 39 51.5 40.1 8.4 100.0 12 30.2 2.9 67.0 100.0 27 Child only 70.4 29.6 0.0 100.0 2 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 1 Household head sex Male 40.7 20.9 38.4 100.0 533 ns 50.8 20.9 28.3 100.0 243 ns 21.9 21.0 57.1 100.0 290 ns Female 43.4 22.0 34.6 100.0 408 49.1 22.0 28.9 100.0 207 29.9 21.9 48.2 100.0 201 Household head educational level Never attended school 47.6 22.2 30.2 100.0 735 *** 54.0 20.7 25.3 100.0 389 *** 30.7 26.2 43.1 100.0 346 *** Pre-primary or primary 25.7 19.8 54.5 100.0 120 33.5 30.2 36.4 100.0 35 19.3 11.2 69.5 100.0 85 Post-primary/vocational or secondary 13.0 18.9 68.1 100.0 43 20.8 25.6 53.6 100.0 15 5.6 12.5 81.9 100.0 28 College or University 4.6 12.9 82.5 100.0 43 5.2 17.7 77.1 100.0 11 4.0 8.4 87.6 100.0 32 Household food security Household is moderately or severely food insecure No 6.4 19.4 74.2 100.0 68 *** 5.9 30.8 63.3 100.0 11 ** 6.7 13.5 79.7 100.0 57 *** Yes 44.3 21.6 34.1 100.0 873 51.4 21.1 27.5 100.0 439 27.9 22.5 49.6 100.0 434 Household poverty status Household living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line No 12.7 8.6 78.7 100.0 136 *** 23.1 8.5 68.4 100.0 36 *** 4.1 8.7 87.2 100.0 100 *** Yes 46.5 23.4 30.1 100.0 805 52.6 22.7 24.6 100.0 414 31.4 25.1 43.5 100.0 391 Agricultural assets Raises any of the targeted livestock commodities (cattle, goats, camels) No 36.1 16.7 47.1 100.0 158 ns 51.2 21.1 27.6 100.0 72 ns 15.7 10.8 73.4 100.0 86 *** Yes 43.1 22.3 34.6 100.0 783 49.8 21.5 28.7 100.0 378 27.7 24.2 48.1 100.0 405 Household raises cattle No 46.6 20.5 32.9 100.0 613 *** 51.3 20.6 28.1 100.0 417 ns 24.8 19.8 55.4 100.0 196 ns Yes 27.3 24.4 48.3 100.0 328 34.0 31.4 34.6 100.0 33 25.5 22.5 52.0 100.0 295 Household raises goats No 35.2 17.5 47.4 100.0 191 ns 50.0 23.7 26.3 100.0 74 ns 19.2 10.7 70.0 100.0 117 *** Yes 43.5 22.3 34.2 100.0 750 50.0 21.1 28.9 100.0 376 27.5 25.5 47.1 100.0 374 Household raises camels No 43.2 20.1 36.7 100.0 834 ** 51.3 20.1 28.6 100.0 405 ns 26.2 20.1 53.6 100.0 429 ns Yes 32.2 31.5 36.3 100.0 107 39.8 32.0 28.1 100.0 45 17.4 30.5 52.1 100.0 62 Agricultural financial services Accessed agri-related financial services No 44.7 22.5 32.8 100.0 846 *** 51.0 22.3 26.7 100.0 434 ** 29.5 22.9 47.6 100.0 412 *** Yes 10.8 9.6 79.7 100.0 95 23.9 0.0 76.1 100.0 16 4.7 14.0 81.3 100.0 79 Accessed agri-related loan No 42.4 21.5 36.1 100.0 927 ** 50.1 21.5 28.4 100.0 449 ns 26.0 21.6 52.5 100.0 478 ns Yes 0.0 13.7 86.3 100.0 14 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 0.0 15.4 84.6 100.0 13 Participated in agri-savings scheme No 44.5 22.4 33.0 100.0 851 *** 50.9 22.2 26.9 100.0 436 * 29.3 23.0 47.7 100.0 415 *** Yes 11.4 9.2 79.5 100.0 90 26.4 0.0 73.6 100.0 14 4.9 13.1 82.0 100.0 76 Value chain interventions Household adopted at least one value chain intervention No 42.1 21.5 36.4 100.0 933 ns 50.0 21.6 28.4 100.0 447 ns 25.5 21.3 53.2 100.0 486 ns Yes 23.1 11.4 65.5 100.0 8 42.7 0.0 57.3 100.0 3 0.0 24.8 75.2 100.0 5 Any crop or livestock value chain Contract farming No 42.0 21.5 36.5 100.0 934 ns 50.0 21.4 28.7 100.0 448 ns 25.2 21.7 53.1 100.0 486 ns Yes 34.5 13.1 52.4 100.0 7 56.9 43.1 0.0 100.0 2 24.7 0.0 75.3 100.0 5 Selling products through community farmer associations No 42.0 21.4 36.6 100.0 930 ns 50.0 21.3 28.7 100.0 443 ns 25.4 21.6 53.0 100.0 487 ns Yes 36.0 25.4 38.6 100.0 11 48.9 34.4 16.7 100.0 7 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 4 Sorting and grading No 42.0 21.5 36.5 100.0 937 ns 50.0 21.5 28.5 100.0 448 ns 25.3 21.5 53.2 100.0 489 ns Yes 31.8 0.0 68.2 100.0 4 57.4 0.0 42.6 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 Bulking No 41.9 21.5 36.6 100.0 938 ns 49.9 21.5 28.6 100.0 449 ns 25.3 21.5 53.3 100.0 489 ns Yes 50.3 0.0 49.7 100.0 3 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 Use of improved record keeping, budgeting and financial management No 42.1 21.5 36.5 100.0 935 ns 50.1 21.5 28.4 100.0 449 ns 25.1 21.4 53.5 100.0 486 ns Yes 20.8 10.4 68.7 100.0 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 33.3 16.7 50.0 100.0 5 Table A7.2b. Percentage of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable food consumption score (FCS) by household background characteristics - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC-Total Turkana Samburu Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 411 Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Table A7.2b. Percentage of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable food consumption score (FCS) by household background characteristics - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC-Total Turkana Samburu Use of training and extension services No 42.1 21.5 36.4 100.0 938 ns 50.0 21.4 28.6 100.0 450 25.4 21.6 53.0 100.0 488 ns Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3 Fodder production value chain Use of improved pasture inputs (e.g., quality seeds) No 42.1 21.5 36.4 100.0 937 ns 50.1 21.5 28.4 100.0 449 ns 25.4 21.5 53.1 100.0 488 ns Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3 Use of mechanized pasture harvesting and baling technologies No 42.0 21.4 36.5 100.0 939 ns 50.0 21.4 28.6 100.0 450 25.3 21.5 53.2 100.0 489 ns Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 Construction and use of hay stores by farmer organizations No 42.0 21.4 36.6 100.0 940 ns 50.1 21.5 28.4 100.0 449 ns 25.2 21.4 53.4 100.0 491 Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 Use of fodder seeds No 42.1 21.4 36.5 100.0 937 ns 50.0 21.4 28.6 100.0 450 25.4 21.3 53.3 100.0 487 ns Yes 0.0 30.9 69.1 100.0 4 0.0 30.9 69.1 100.0 4 Use of harvesting, drying, packaging, storage, and marketing technologies No 41.8 21.5 36.7 100.0 940 ns 49.9 21.5 28.7 100.0 449 ns 25.2 21.4 53.4 100.0 491 Yes 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1 Improved livestock management practices Used improved livestock breeds/species No 42.4 21.5 36.1 100.0 925 *** 50.0 21.4 28.6 100.0 450 25.9 21.6 52.5 100.0 475 ns Yes 4.8 16.2 79.0 100.0 16 4.8 16.2 79.0 100.0 16 Used livestock health services and products No 45.6 21.2 33.2 100.0 781 *** 52.5 20.6 26.9 100.0 431 ** 26.7 22.7 50.6 100.0 350 ns Yes 16.4 23.0 60.5 100.0 160 3.6 36.2 60.2 100.0 19 21.3 18.0 60.6 100.0 141 Used improved livestock shelters No 39.6 22.2 38.3 100.0 847 ns 46.9 23.2 29.8 100.0 384 ns 25.8 20.2 54.0 100.0 463 ns Yes 58.3 16.2 25.5 100.0 94 66.2 11.8 22.0 100.0 66 15.1 40.3 44.6 100.0 28 Used improved calving techniques No 42.1 21.5 36.5 100.0 938 ns 50.0 21.4 28.6 100.0 450 25.4 21.6 53.0 100.0 488 ns Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3 Used improved milking techniques No 42.1 21.4 36.5 100.0 937 ns 50.2 21.5 28.3 100.0 448 ns 25.1 21.3 53.6 100.0 489 ns Yes 14.7 14.7 70.7 100.0 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 50.0 50.0 0.0 100.0 2 Used nutritious pasture varieties No 42.3 21.4 36.3 100.0 925 ns 50.3 21.3 28.4 100.0 441 ns 25.6 21.5 52.9 100.0 484 ns Yes 25.3 21.6 53.1 100.0 16 35.0 25.7 39.3 100.0 9 0.0 10.8 89.2 100.0 7 Used set grazing areas No 44.5 21.0 34.5 100.0 815 *** 52.4 21.2 26.4 100.0 411 ** 26.9 20.4 52.7 100.0 404 ns Yes 21.9 24.7 53.5 100.0 126 26.4 23.3 50.3 100.0 39 16.6 26.2 57.2 100.0 87 Used improved fodder production No 42.1 21.5 36.3 100.0 936 ns 50.2 21.5 28.3 100.0 448 ns 25.3 21.5 53.2 100.0 488 ns Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3 Used solarized boreholes for livestock No 42.3 21.4 36.4 100.0 927 ns 50.1 21.3 28.6 100.0 449 ns 25.5 21.4 53.0 100.0 478 ns Yes 12.5 26.3 61.2 100.0 14 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 1 13.7 19.6 66.7 100.0 13 Used water pans for livestock No 42.2 20.9 36.8 100.0 890 ns 50.0 21.1 28.8 100.0 442 ns 24.7 20.5 54.8 100.0 448 ns Yes 34.9 33.5 31.6 100.0 51 47.9 40.5 11.6 100.0 8 29.8 30.8 39.3 100.0 43 Used sand dams for livestock No 42.0 21.2 36.8 100.0 918 ns 50.0 21.4 28.6 100.0 450 24.7 20.6 54.7 100.0 468 * Yes 35.8 36.9 27.3 100.0 23 35.8 36.9 27.3 100.0 23 Used rock catchments for livestock No 42.0 21.5 36.6 100.0 922 ns 50.0 21.5 28.6 100.0 445 ns 25.0 21.4 53.6 100.0 477 ns Yes 41.9 19.1 39.0 100.0 19 53.7 17.2 29.1 100.0 5 32.3 20.5 47.2 100.0 14 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 412 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Table A7.2b. Percentage of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable food consumption score (FCS) by household background characteristics - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC-Total Turkana Samburu Improved post harvest handling and storage practices Used aflatoxin prevention and control No 42.0 21.4 36.6 100.0 940 ns 50.0 21.4 28.6 100.0 450 25.3 21.4 53.3 100.0 490 ns Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 Used aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers during transportation No 41.9 21.5 36.6 100.0 939 ns 49.9 21.5 28.6 100.0 449 ns 25.3 21.5 53.2 100.0 490 ns Yes 47.3 0.0 52.7 100.0 2 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 Used well-equipped food storage structures (rodent proof; proper air circulation) No 42.0 21.5 36.5 100.0 939 ns 50.1 21.5 28.4 100.0 449 ns 25.2 21.4 53.4 100.0 490 ns Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 Applied temperature and humidity control (shed nets, air condition, fans) No 41.9 21.4 36.6 100.0 941 50.0 21.4 28.6 100.0 450 25.2 21.4 53.4 100.0 491 Yes Used solar drying for grains and pulses No 42.4 21.4 36.1 100.0 923 ns 50.9 21.4 27.7 100.0 433 ns 25.3 21.5 53.3 100.0 490 ns Yes 22.3 21.0 56.7 100.0 18 23.6 22.1 54.3 100.0 17 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 Improved crop management practices Improved/certified seed No 41.6 22.2 36.2 100.0 901 ns 49.4 22.4 28.2 100.0 419 ns 25.8 21.9 52.3 100.0 482 ns Yes 49.3 4.6 46.0 100.0 40 59.2 5.6 35.3 100.0 31 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 9 Seedling production and transplantation No 42.2 21.4 36.4 100.0 934 ns 50.3 21.3 28.4 100.0 446 ns 25.4 21.5 53.1 100.0 488 ns Yes 12.4 24.9 62.7 100.0 7 17.5 35.2 47.3 100.0 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3 Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) No 42.4 21.1 36.4 100.0 925 ** 50.9 21.0 28.1 100.0 435 ** 25.3 21.4 53.3 100.0 490 ns Yes 20.0 34.0 45.9 100.0 16 20.8 35.3 44.0 100.0 15 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 Kitchen gardens using sunken pits No 41.9 21.3 36.8 100.0 935 ns 50.0 21.3 28.7 100.0 444 ns 25.2 21.4 53.4 100.0 491 Yes 47.3 37.3 15.5 100.0 6 47.3 37.3 15.5 100.0 6 Use of organic manure No 42.4 21.5 36.0 100.0 908 ns 50.5 21.3 28.1 100.0 427 ns 25.9 22.0 52.1 100.0 481 ns Yes 29.7 18.0 52.3 100.0 33 38.5 23.4 38.1 100.0 23 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 10 Soil testing No 42.0 21.5 36.5 100.0 938 ns 50.1 21.5 28.4 100.0 447 ns 25.2 21.4 53.4 100.0 491 Yes 30.2 0.0 69.8 100.0 3 30.2 0.0 69.8 100.0 3 Application of inoculant No 42.1 21.5 36.5 100.0 939 ns 50.2 21.5 28.3 100.0 448 ns 25.2 21.4 53.4 100.0 491 Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies No 42.1 21.3 36.6 100.0 938 ns 50.3 21.3 28.4 100.0 448 ns 25.0 21.4 53.6 100.0 490 ns Yes 16.2 38.8 45.0 100.0 3 0.0 46.3 53.7 100.0 2 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1 Use of rainwater harvesting technologies (water pans, rock/roof catchment) No 41.8 21.3 36.9 100.0 935 ns 49.9 21.3 28.9 100.0 444 ns 25.2 21.4 53.4 100.0 491 Yes 63.1 36.9 0.0 100.0 6 63.1 36.9 0.0 100.0 6 Use of flood-based farming technologies (spate irrigation) No 42.1 21.5 36.5 100.0 939 ns 50.2 21.5 28.3 100.0 448 ns 25.2 21.4 53.4 100.0 491 Yes 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes No 42.4 21.3 36.3 100.0 931 ns 50.8 21.3 28.0 100.0 440 * 25.2 21.4 53.4 100.0 491 Yes 10.5 30.0 59.5 100.0 10 10.5 30.0 59.5 100.0 10 Use of drought early warning systems or information No 42.1 21.5 36.4 100.0 935 ns 50.4 21.5 28.1 100.0 444 * 25.2 21.4 53.4 100.0 491 Yes 16.8 15.6 67.5 100.0 6 16.8 15.6 67.5 100.0 6 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 413 Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Acceptable (42.5-112) Total N Sig.a Table A7.2b. Percentage of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable food consumption score (FCS) by household background characteristics - MC RFSA Areas [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC-Total Turkana Samburu Improved NRM practices Reseeding degraded lands with drought resistant grass species No 42.4 21.4 36.2 100.0 928 ns 50.1 21.2 28.6 100.0 449 ns 25.9 21.7 52.4 100.0 479 ns Yes 0.0 24.8 75.2 100.0 13 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 1 0.0 9.0 91.0 100.0 12 Fencing off pasture plots to conserve pasture No 42.0 21.7 36.3 100.0 897 ns 49.3 21.6 29.1 100.0 438 ns 26.0 22.0 52.0 100.0 459 ns Yes 41.1 14.6 44.3 100.0 44 74.9 15.5 9.6 100.0 12 14.8 14.0 71.2 100.0 32 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands (soil/water conservation) No 42.2 21.3 36.5 100.0 932 ns 50.2 21.4 28.4 100.0 446 ns 25.5 21.1 53.5 100.0 486 ns Yes 14.3 37.1 48.5 100.0 9 24.0 29.2 46.9 100.0 4 0.0 49.0 51.0 100.0 5 Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) No 42.4 21.2 36.5 100.0 929 ns 50.2 21.2 28.6 100.0 447 ns 25.7 21.2 53.0 100.0 482 ns Yes 9.0 40.2 50.8 100.0 12 20.4 55.1 24.6 100.0 3 0.0 28.3 71.7 100.0 9 Use of natural barriers/cover crops (grass strips/crop covers) No 42.2 21.7 36.1 100.0 917 ns 50.2 21.6 28.2 100.0 437 ns 25.4 22.0 52.6 100.0 480 ns Yes 33.6 9.0 57.4 100.0 24 42.2 13.7 44.1 100.0 13 17.2 0.0 82.8 100.0 11 Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay or other crop residues No 41.8 21.7 36.5 100.0 928 ns 49.7 21.7 28.6 100.0 443 ns 25.4 21.7 52.9 100.0 485 ns Yes 53.6 0.0 46.4 100.0 13 77.6 0.0 22.4 100.0 7 10.6 0.0 89.4 100.0 6 Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) No 42.0 21.6 36.4 100.0 933 ns 49.9 21.5 28.6 100.0 447 ns 25.5 21.6 52.9 100.0 486 ns Yes 34.6 0.0 65.4 100.0 8 73.8 0.0 26.2 100.0 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 5 Zaï pits (pot-holing) No 41.9 21.4 36.7 100.0 940 ns 49.9 21.5 28.6 100.0 449 ns 25.2 21.4 53.4 100.0 491 Yes 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1 Use of minimum tillage practices (leave crop residue on soil surface) No 41.8 21.7 36.5 100.0 924 ns 49.7 21.7 28.6 100.0 438 ns 25.5 21.7 52.8 100.0 486 ns Yes 48.5 6.9 44.6 100.0 17 64.5 9.2 26.2 100.0 12 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 5 Planting nitrogen-fixing trees (acacia) No 42.0 21.3 36.6 100.0 939 ns 50.1 21.3 28.6 100.0 449 ns 25.3 21.4 53.3 100.0 490 ns Yes 0.0 61.4 38.6 100.0 2 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1 Household access to group-based credit and/or savings Household participated in group-based savings programs No 43.0 21.9 35.1 100.0 904 *** 50.2 21.5 28.4 100.0 446 ns 26.9 22.9 50.2 100.0 458 *** Yes 7.7 5.4 86.9 100.0 37 26.7 18.3 55.0 100.0 4 4.2 3.0 92.9 100.0 33 Household participated in group-based credit programs No 42.9 21.6 35.5 100.0 905 *** 50.4 21.3 28.3 100.0 442 ns 26.4 22.3 51.3 100.0 463 ** Yes 12.2 14.0 73.8 100.0 36 25.2 27.0 47.9 100.0 8 5.7 7.5 86.8 100.0 28 Household participated in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 43.6 21.9 34.6 100.0 884 *** 50.5 21.3 28.2 100.0 440 ns 27.6 23.2 49.2 100.0 444 *** Yes 9.3 12.2 78.5 100.0 57 20.7 29.2 50.1 100.0 10 5.5 6.3 88.2 100.0 47 Household exposure to COVID-19 impacts Household income/livelihood impacted by COVID-19 No 45.7 22.4 31.9 100.0 481 * 54.5 21.0 24.5 100.0 240 ns 26.0 25.5 48.4 100.0 241 ns Yes 38.3 20.4 41.3 100.0 460 45.4 21.8 32.8 100.0 210 24.4 17.6 57.9 100.0 250 Household access to food impacted by COVID-19 No 45.1 22.9 32.0 100.0 423 ns 54.1 22.9 23.0 100.0 206 ns 25.8 22.9 51.3 100.0 217 ns Yes 39.5 20.3 40.2 100.0 518 46.8 20.3 33.0 100.0 244 24.7 20.3 55.0 100.0 274 Household member contracted COVID-19 virus in 90 days prior to survey No 42.1 21.4 36.5 100.0 928 ns 50.2 21.5 28.3 100.0 444 ns 25.3 21.3 53.5 100.0 484 ns Yes 31.9 20.5 47.5 100.0 13 37.0 17.1 45.9 100.0 6 21.7 27.3 50.9 100.0 7 Total 41.9 21.4 36.6 100.0 941 50.0 21.4 28.6 100.0 450 25.2 21.4 53.4 100.0 491 NOTES: FCS is a composite score based on dietary diversity, food frequency and relative nutritional value of the different food groups. Values are then weighted and summed to obtain the FCS. Households are categorized into consumption groups based on pre-established thresholds. A modified threshold was used to account for the local diet which consists of daily oil and sugar consumption: Poor (0 - 28); borderline (28.5 - 42); and acceptable (>42). For more details refer to Supplement to Part 1 - BHA Baseline/Endline Questionnaire and Indicator Tabulations for Resilience Food Security Activities. a Significance tests (chi-square) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (FCS group) and the disaggregate variable (e.g, sex, household poverty status, etc.). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30. Analytical sample includes a subsample of cases for which there are no missing values on any of the variables. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 414 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Sig.a Acceptable (42.5-112) Sig.a Total N Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Sig.a Acceptable (42.5-112) Sig.a Total N Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Sig.a Acceptable (42.5-112) Sig.a Total N Average age of household head 47.2 47.8 ns 46.1 ns 46.5 1,113 47.7 48.5 ns 45.8 ns 46.6 720 40.6 44.8 ns 46.6 ns 46.3 393 Average number of adult females in household 1.3 1.1 ns 1.2 ns 1.2 1,113 1.3 1.1 ns 1.2 ns 1.2 720 0.9 1.2 * 1.2 *** 1.2 393 Average number of adult males in household 1.1 1.2 * 1.3 ** 1.3 1,113 1.1 1.2 ns 1.3 * 1.2 720 1.4 1.3 ns 1.3 ns 1.3 393 Average number of children under five in household 1.0 1.1 ns 1.0 ns 1.0 1,113 1.0 1.1 ns 1.0 ns 1.0 720 0.9 1.1 ns 1.0 ns 1.0 393 Average number of children 5-17 2.1 2.4 ns 2.3 ns 2.3 1,113 2.2 2.2 ns 2.2 ns 2.2 720 1.7 3.0 ns 2.4 ns 2.5 393 Average daily per capita consumption expenditures (constant 2010 USD) $1.06 $1.10 ns $2.02 *** 1.8 1,113 $1.04 $1.02 ns $1.85 ** 1.6 720 $1.39 $1.46 ns $2.28 * 2.2 393 Average score - Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.7 3.3 ns 3.7 ns 3.6 1,113 3.7 3.4 ns 3.9 ns 3.8 720 3.7 2.8 * 3.3 ns 3.2 393 Average score - social bonding index 72.7 67.9 ns 70.4 ns 70.2 1,113 73.1 67.8 ns 69.3 ns 69.6 720 67.1 68.3 ns 71.9 ns 71.5 393 Average score - social bridging index 67.9 64.8 ns 68.1 ns 67.5 1,113 68.4 63.4 ns 66.7 ns 66.3 720 60.4 71.0 ns 70.1 ns 70.0 393 Average score - overall social capital index 70.3 66.3 ns 69.2 ns 68.9 1,113 70.8 65.6 ns 68.0 ns 68.0 720 63.8 69.6 ns 71.0 ns 70.7 393 Average score - absorptive capacity index 31.2 31.3 ns 38.7 *** 36.8 1,113 30.4 29.7 ns 34.8 * 33.2 720 43.7 38.2 ns 44.6 ns 44.1 393 Average score - adaptive capacity index 28.4 30.2 ns 35.1 *** 33.6 1,113 28.0 29.2 ns 33.1 * 31.6 720 34.4 34.6 ns 38.1 ns 37.7 393 Average score - transformative capacity index 27.9 28.9 ns 34.3 ns 32.8 1,113 27.0 25.6 ns 27.5 ns 27.1 720 40.1 43.6 ns 44.6 ns 44.4 393 Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Sig.a Acceptable (42.5-112) Sig.a Total N Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Sig.a Acceptable (42.5-112) Sig.a Total N Poor (0-28) Borderline (28.5-42) Sig.a Acceptable (42.5-112) Sig.a Total N Average age of household head 49.4 48.7 ns 43.7 *** 47.2 941 50.2 50.2 ns 45.3 ** 48.8 450 45.8 45.6 ns 41.9 ns 43.7 491 Average number of adult females in household 1.1 1.2 ns 1.1 ns 1.2 941 1.2 1.2 ns 1.2 ns 1.2 450 1.1 1.2 ns 1.1 ns 1.1 491 Average number of adult males in household 1.0 0.9 ns 1.1 ns 1.0 941 1.0 0.9 ns 1.1 ns 1.0 450 1.0 1.1 ns 1.1 ns 1.1 491 Average number of children under five in household 1.0 1.1 ns 1.1 ns 1.0 941 1.0 1.1 ns 1.2 ns 1.0 450 0.9 1.1 ns 0.9 ns 1.0 491 Average number of children 5-17 2.2 2.4 ns 2.6 * 2.4 941 2.1 2.4 ns 2.8 ** 2.4 450 2.4 2.3 ns 2.3 ns 2.3 491 Average daily per capita consumption expenditures (constant 2010 USD) $0.53 $0.78 ** $1.90 *** 1.1 941 $0.46 $0.72 ns $1.41 * 0.8 450 $0.77 $0.92 ns $2.45 *** 1.7 491 Average score - Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.5 3.7 ns 3.8 * 3.7 941 3.6 3.7 ns 3.8 ns 3.7 450 3.1 3.6 ** 3.8 *** 3.6 491 Average score - social bonding index 68.7 70.1 ns 73.1 ns 70.6 941 66.5 69.2 ns 68.6 ns 67.7 450 77.6 72.0 * 78.0 ns 76.6 491 Average score - social bridging index 66.7 70.8 ns 71.8 ns 69.4 941 64.8 69.2 ns 69.9 ns 67.2 450 74.6 74.0 ns 73.9 ns 74.1 491 Average score - overall social capital index 67.7 70.4 ns 72.4 ns 70.0 941 65.7 69.2 ns 69.3 ns 67.5 450 76.1 73.0 ns 75.9 ns 75.4 491 Average score - absorptive capacity index 24.3 29.4 *** 39.6 *** 31.0 941 23.0 28.5 *** 35.2 *** 27.7 450 29.8 31.1 ns 44.5 *** 37.9 491 Average score - adaptive capacity index 22.6 29.3 *** 39.1 *** 30.1 941 21.2 28.4 *** 34.6 *** 26.6 450 28.5 31.2 ns 44.2 *** 37.4 491 Average score - transformative capacity index 25.0 27.0 ns 33.1 ** 28.39 941 24.6 26.9 ns 28.3 ns 26.16 450 26.63 27.03 ns 38.47 ** 33.04 491 NOTES: FCS is a composite score based on dietary diversity, food frequency and relative nutritional value of the different food groups. Values are then weighted and summed to obtain the FCS. Households are categorized into consumption groups based on pre-established thresholds. A modified threshold was used to account for the local diet which consists of daily oil and sugar consumption: Poor (0 - 28); borderline (28.5 - 42); and acceptable (>42). For more details refer to Supplement to Part 1 - BHA Baseline/Endline Questionnaire and Indicator Tabulations for Resilience Food Security Activities. a Significance tests (t-tests) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (FCS group ) and the disaggregate variable (e.g, average daily per capita consumption expenditures). The comparison category is "poor FCS." Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30. Analytical sample includes a subsample of cases for which there are no missing values on any of the variables. Table A7.2c. Average (mean values) of household background characteristics by category of FCS groups (poor, borderline, acceptable food consumption score) by RFSA area and county [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 415 % N Siga % N Siga % N Siga Residence Rural 77.7 1,014 ** 79.1 691 * 74.0 323 ns Urban 53.8 99 40.5 29 57.9 70 Gendered household type Both 74.9 949 ns 77.5 610 ns 70.1 339 ns Female Only 76.8 124 80.2 87 65.1 37 Male Only 55.3 40 54.7 23 56.9 17 Child only Household head sex Male 75.1 771 ns 78.6 485 ns 68.8 286 ns Female 73.9 342 74.6 235 72.4 107 Household head educational level Never attended school 78.2 893 *** 80.9 625 *** 71.8 268 ns Pre-primary or primary 67.8 131 59.8 55 73.4 76 Post-primary/vocational or secondary 54.0 58 46.9 28 61.6 30 College or University 26.1 31 29.2 12 24.2 19 Household food security Household is moderately or severely food insecure No 44.3 140 *** 47.6 75 *** 40.0 65 ** Yes 78.1 973 80.3 645 73.9 328 Agricultural assets Raises any of the targeted livestock commodities (cattle, goats, camels) No 69.8 64 ns 73.0 17 ns 69.2 47 ns Yes 75.1 1,049 77.5 703 69.7 346 Household raises cattle No 75.3 660 ns 78.1 428 ns 69.9 232 ns Yes 73.8 453 76.3 292 69.3 161 Household raises goats No 66.1 104 ns 68.9 29 ns 65.3 75 ns Yes 75.7 1,009 77.7 691 70.8 318 Household raises camels No 71.3 571 ns 75.7 219 ns 68.9 352 ns Yes 78.0 542 78.1 501 76.7 41 Agricultural financial services Accessed agri-related financial services No 76.8 977 * 78.7 662 * 72.4 315 ns Yes 59.6 136 60.8 58 58.7 78 Accessed agri-related loan No 74.9 1,088 ns 77.5 703 ns 70.0 385 ns Yes 66.8 25 74.8 17 46.3 8 Participated in agri-savings scheme No 76.7 997 * 78.7 677 * 72.3 320 ns Yes 56.8 116 54.3 43 58.1 73 Table A7.3a. Percentage of households living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line by household background characteristics - CRS RFSA Areas CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo Household background characteristics IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 416 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Siga % N Siga % N Siga Table A7.3a. Percentage of households living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line by household background characteristics - CRS RFSA Areas CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo Value chain interventions Household adopted at least one value chain intervention No 74.4 1,043 ns 76.1 662 ** 71.3 381 * Yes 79.9 70 93.5 58 30.6 12 Any crop or livestock value chain Contract farming No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Selling products through community farmer associations No 74.9 1,107 ns 77.4 719 ns 70.0 388 ns Yes 40.2 6 100.0 1 34.6 5 Sorting and grading No 74.8 1,094 ns 76.9 705 ns 71.0 389 *** Yes 72.0 19 100.0 15 7.5 4 Bulking No 74.2 1,075 * 76.8 687 ns 69.4 388 ns Yes 92.0 38 91.8 33 93.0 5 Use of improved record keeping, budgeting and financial management No 74.6 1,107 ns 77.3 715 ns 69.5 392 ns Yes 94.5 6 92.6 5 100.0 1 Use of training and extension services No 74.7 1,106 ns 77.4 713 ns 69.6 393 Yes 86.5 7 86.5 7 Fodder production value chain Use of improved pasture inputs (e.g., quality seeds) No Yes 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Use of mechanized pasture harvesting and baling technologies No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Construction and use of hay stores by farmer organizations No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Use of fodder seeds No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Use of harvesting, drying, packaging, storage, and marketing technologies No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 417 % N Siga % N Siga % N Siga Table A7.3a. Percentage of households living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line by household background characteristics - CRS RFSA Areas CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo Used improved livestock breeds/species No 74.9 1,084 ns 77.8 693 ns 69.5 391 * Yes 69.2 29 67.4 27 96.1 2 Used livestock health services and products No 74.9 998 ns 76.9 630 ns 71.0 368 ns Yes 73.9 115 81.5 90 60.2 25 Used improved livestock shelters No 74.4 1,049 ns 76.9 660 ns 70.0 389 ns Yes 81.2 64 84.2 60 39.5 4 Used improved calving techniques No 74.6 1,102 * 77.2 709 * 69.6 393 Yes 96.6 11 96.6 11 Used improved milking techniques No 74.7 1,107 ns 77.4 714 ns 69.6 393 Yes 79.2 6 79.2 6 Used nutritious pasture varieties No 74.5 1,058 ns 76.8 671 ns 70.3 387 ns Yes 79.8 55 85.5 49 29.0 6 Used set grazing areas No 72.7 768 ns 73.4 416 * 71.8 352 ns Yes 79.2 345 82.8 304 52.8 41 Used improved fodder production No 75.6 1,088 *** 78.3 702 ** 70.4 386 ** Yes 40.4 25 43.4 18 33.4 7 Used solarized boreholes for livestock No 74.5 1,027 ns 77.4 636 ns 69.6 391 ns Yes 78.0 86 78.0 84 71.4 2 Used water pans for livestock No 75.1 1,036 ns 78.7 653 ns 68.8 383 *** Yes 69.4 77 64.2 67 98.1 10 Used sand dams for livestock No 74.9 1,046 ns 78.2 677 ns 68.5 369 ns Yes 72.1 67 62.5 43 83.8 24 Used rock catchments for livestock No 74.6 1,068 ns 77.3 675 ns 69.6 393 Yes 80.5 45 80.5 45 Improved livestock management practices IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 418 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Siga % N Siga % N Siga Table A7.3a. Percentage of households living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line by household background characteristics - CRS RFSA Areas CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo Used aflatoxin prevention and control No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Used aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers during transportation No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Used well-equipped food storage structures (rodent proof; proper air circulation) No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Applied temperature and humidity control (shed nets, air condition, fans) No 74.7 1,112 ns 77.4 720 69.5 392 ns Yes 100.0 1 100.0 1 Used solar drying for grains and pulses No 74.8 1,110 ns 77.4 720 69.6 390 ns Yes 81.6 3 81.6 3 Improved/certified seed No 74.9 1,111 * 77.6 719 * 69.6 392 ns Yes 20.4 2 0.0 1 100.0 1 Seedling production and transplantation No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) No 74.8 1,110 ns 77.4 720 69.6 390 ns Yes 83.3 3 83.3 3 Kitchen gardens using sunken pits No 74.9 1,112 ns 77.6 719 * 69.6 393 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Use of organic manure No 74.8 1,110 ns 77.6 719 * 69.4 391 ns Yes 60.5 3 0.0 1 100.0 2 Soil testing No 74.7 1,112 ns 77.4 720 69.5 392 ns Yes 100.0 1 100.0 1 Application of inoculant No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies No 74.8 1,111 ns 77.6 719 * 69.5 392 ns Yes 45.2 2 0.0 1 100.0 1 Use of rainwater harvesting technologies (water pans, rock/roof catchment) No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Use of flood-based farming technologies (spate irrigation) No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Improved crop management practices Improved post harvest handling and storage practices Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 419 % N Siga % N Siga % N Siga Table A7.3a. Percentage of households living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line by household background characteristics - CRS RFSA Areas CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Use of drought early warning systems or information No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Reseeding degraded lands with drought resistant grass species No 74.6 1,103 ns 77.7 718 ns 68.4 385 ** Yes 86.3 10 31.6 2 97.8 8 Fencing off pasture plots to conserve pasture No 74.7 1,083 ns 77.5 695 ns 69.3 388 ns Yes 78.7 30 75.0 25 100.0 5 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands (soil/water conservation) No 74.3 1,085 *** 76.9 694 ** 69.6 391 ns Yes 94.6 28 95.8 26 82.2 2 Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) No 74.6 1,100 ** 77.2 707 * 69.6 393 Yes 93.6 13 93.6 13 Use of natural barriers/cover crops (grass strips/crop covers) No 74.7 1,108 ns 77.3 715 ns 69.6 393 Yes 100.0 5 100.0 5 Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay or other crop residues No 74.8 1,110 ns 77.4 718 ns 70.0 392 ns Yes 55.7 3 100.0 2 0.0 1 Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) No 74.8 1,111 ns 77.5 718 ns 69.6 393 ns Yes 58.3 2 58.3 2 Zaï pits (pot-holing) No 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 Yes Use of minimum tillage practices (leave crop residue on soil surface) No 74.8 1,109 ns 77.4 718 ns 69.9 391 ns Yes 60.9 4 100.0 2 0.0 2 Planting nitrogen-fixing trees (acacia) No 74.8 1,111 *** 77.4 720 ns 69.7 391 ns Yes 61.1 2 61.1 2 Household participated in group-based savings programs No 74.9 1,069 ns 77.5 715 ns 69.4 354 ns Yes 71.1 44 60.7 5 72.3 39 Household participated in group-based credit programs No 74.9 1,080 ns 77.5 701 ns 70.0 379 ns Yes 69.9 33 76.9 19 59.1 14 Household participated in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 74.8 1,049 ns 77.5 696 ns 69.3 353 ns Yes 73.4 64 74.1 24 72.8 40 Household access to group-based credit and/or savings Improved NRM practices IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 420 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Siga % N Siga % N Siga Table A7.3a. Percentage of households living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line by household background characteristics - CRS RFSA Areas CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo Household income/livelihood impacted by COVID-19 No 74.0 623 ns 75.4 434 ns 70.3 189 ns Yes 75.6 490 80.3 286 69.1 204 Household access to food impacted by COVID-19 No 74.2 482 ns 77.1 340 ns 67.2 142 ns Yes 75.2 631 77.7 380 70.9 251 Household member contracted COVID-19 virus in 90 days prior to survey No 75.0 1,101 ns 77.6 712 ns 69.9 389 ns Yes 49.9 12 55.9 8 40.1 4 Total 74.8 1,113 77.4 720 69.6 393 NOTES: a Significance tests (chi-square) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (poverty) and the disaggregate variable (e.g, urban/rural residence). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30. Analytical sample includes a subsample of cases for which there are no missing values on any of the variables. Household exposure to COVID-19 impacts Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 421 % N Siga % N Siga % N Siga Household background characteristics Residence Rural 90.9 827 ** 94.6 403 * 82.6 424 * Urban 66.9 114 71.6 47 58.9 67 Gendered household type Both 86.2 718 * 90.6 350 ns 77.0 368 ** Female Only 94.5 182 96.0 87 90.7 95 Male Only 79.0 39 92.7 12 62.9 27 Child only 100.0 2 100.0 1 100.0 1 Household head sex Male 85.7 533 ns 91.1 243 ns 74.7 290 ns Female 89.8 408 92.1 207 84.5 201 Household head educational level Never attended school 93.6 735 *** 95.1 389 *** 89.6 346 *** Pre-primary or primary 78.9 120 90.8 35 69.9 85 Post-primary/vocational or secondary 52.3 43 63.3 15 38.8 28 College or University 30.0 43 38.7 11 17.8 32 Household food security Household is moderately or severely food insecure No 42.8 68 *** 44.9 11 *** 41.4 57 *** Yes 90.5 873 93.4 439 83.9 434 Agricultural assets Raises any of the targeted livestock commodities (cattle, goats, camels) No 76.2 158 ** 92.3 72 ns 55.8 86 *** Yes 89.4 783 91.4 378 84.6 405 Household raises cattle No 88.5 613 ns 91.6 417 ns 73.2 196 ns Yes 83.8 328 89.9 33 82.2 295 Household raises goats No 75.6 191 ** 92.6 74 ns 59.0 117 *** Yes 89.9 750 91.3 376 86.2 374 Household raises camels No 86.5 834 ns 90.8 405 ns 77.2 429 ns Yes 94.2 107 96.6 45 89.1 62 Agricultural financial services Accessed agri-related financial services No 91.6 846 *** 94.3 434 *** 84.8 412 *** Yes 44.1 95 34.3 16 49.6 79 Accessed agri-related loan No 87.7 927 * 91.5 449 ns 79.5 478 ns Yes 61.3 14 100.0 1 52.2 13 Participated in agri-savings scheme No 91.6 851 *** 94.4 436 *** 84.9 415 *** Yes 39.5 90 24.2 14 47.4 76 Table A7.3b. Percentage of households living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line by household background characteristics - MC RFSA Areas MC-Total Turkana Samburu IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 422 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Siga % N Siga % N Siga Table A7.3b. Percentage of households living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line by household background characteristics - MC RFSA Areas MC-Total Turkana Samburu Value chain interventions No 87.9 933 *** 91.7 447 * 79.8 486 *** Yes 14.6 8 42.7 3 0.0 5 Any crop or livestock value chain Contract farming No 87.7 934 ** 91.5 448 ns 79.5 486 * Yes 44.9 7 100.0 2 27.8 5 Selling products through community farmer associations No 87.5 930 ns 91.7 443 * 78.6 487 ns Yes 74.3 11 74.3 7 74.3 4 Sorting and grading No 87.4 937 ns 91.5 448 ns 78.6 489 ns Yes 92.8 4 100.0 2 70.6 2 Bulking No 87.4 938 ns 91.5 449 ns 78.8 489 * Yes 60.7 3 100.0 1 19.5 2 Use of improved record keeping, budgeting and financial management No 87.5 935 ns 91.6 449 ** 78.6 486 ns Yes 59.0 6 0.0 1 75.5 5 Use of training and extension services No 87.5 938 *** 91.5 450 78.9 488 ** Yes 0.0 3 0.0 3 Fodder production value chain Use of improved pasture inputs (e.g., quality seeds) No 87.7 937 *** 91.7 449 ** 79.3 488 *** Yes 0.0 4 0.0 1 0.0 3 Use of mechanized pasture harvesting and baling technologies No 87.5 939 *** 91.5 450 79.1 489 ** Yes 0.0 2 0.0 2 Construction and use of hay stores by farmer organizations No 87.4 940 * 91.5 449 ** 78.6 491 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Use of fodder seeds No 87.7 937 *** 91.5 450 79.6 487 *** Yes 0.0 4 0.0 4 Use of harvesting, drying, packaging, storage, and marketing technologies No 87.4 940 ns 91.5 449 ns 78.6 491 Yes 100.0 1 100.0 1 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 423 % N Siga % N Siga % N Siga Table A7.3b. Percentage of households living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line by household background characteristics - MC RFSA Areas MC-Total Turkana Samburu Improved livestock management practices Used improved livestock breeds/species No 87.7 925 *** 91.5 450 79.4 475 * Yes 55.8 16 55.8 16 Used livestock health services and products No 88.6 781 ns 92.5 431 ns 77.6 350 ns Yes 79.2 160 74.6 19 81.0 141 Used improved livestock shelters No 88.3 847 ns 92.8 384 ns 79.6 463 ns Yes 81.0 94 84.4 66 63.4 28 Used improved calving techniques No 87.4 938 ns 91.5 450 78.5 488 ns Yes 92.2 3 92.2 3 Used improved milking techniques No 87.5 937 ns 91.8 448 ** 78.5 489 ns Yes 40.9 4 0.0 2 100.0 2 Used nutritious pasture varieties No 87.7 925 * 91.9 441 * 78.9 484 ns Yes 67.7 16 70.5 9 60.3 7 Used set grazing areas No 86.7 815 ns 90.6 411 ns 77.9 404 ns Yes 92.2 126 100.0 39 82.4 87 Used improved fodder production No 87.7 936 *** 91.8 448 ** 79.0 488 ** Yes 0.0 5 0.0 2 0.0 3 Used solarized boreholes for livestock No 87.3 927 ns 91.5 449 ns 78.1 478 ns Yes 100.0 14 100.0 1 100.0 13 Used water pans for livestock No 87.5 890 ns 91.5 442 ns 78.3 448 ns Yes 84.4 51 92.1 8 81.4 43 Used sand dams for livestock No 87.3 918 ns 91.5 450 77.8 468 ** Yes 93.6 23 93.6 23 Used rock catchments for livestock No 87.4 922 ns 91.4 445 ns 78.7 477 ns Yes 86.1 19 100.0 5 76.2 14 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 424 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Siga % N Siga % N Siga Table A7.3b. Percentage of households living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line by household background characteristics - MC RFSA Areas MC-Total Turkana Samburu Improved post harvest handling and storage practices Used aflatoxin prevention and control No 87.4 940 ns 91.5 450 ns 78.6 490 ns Yes 100.0 1 100.0 1 Used aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers during transportation No 87.5 939 * 91.5 449 ns 79.0 490 ns Yes 31.0 2 100.0 1 0.0 1 Used well-equipped food storage structures (rodent proof; proper air circulation) No 87.5 939 *** 91.5 449 ** 78.9 490 * Yes 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0 1 Applied temperature and humidity control (shed nets, air condition, fans) No 87.4 941 91.5 450 78.6 491 Yes Used solar drying for grains and pulses No 87.3 923 ns 91.5 433 ns 78.7 490 ns Yes 88.5 18 90.7 17 0.0 1 Improved crop management practices Improved/certified seed No 88.2 901 * 91.9 419 ns 80.5 482 *** Yes 69.2 40 84.7 31 0.0 9 Seedling production and transplantation No 87.4 934 ns 91.4 446 ns 78.9 488 * Yes 80.3 7 100.0 4 0.0 3 Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) No 87.2 925 ns 91.3 435 ns 78.8 490 * Yes 93.1 16 96.8 15 0.0 1 Kitchen gardens using sunken pits No 87.3 935 ns 91.4 444 ns 78.6 491 Yes 100.0 6 100.0 6 Use of organic manure No 87.8 908 ns 91.8 427 ns 79.6 481 *** Yes 77.0 33 86.2 23 31.0 10 Soil testing No 87.3 938 ns 91.5 447 ns 78.6 491 Yes 100.0 3 100.0 3 Application of inoculant No 87.3 939 ns 91.5 448 ns 78.6 491 Yes 100.0 2 100.0 2 Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies No 87.7 938 * 92.0 448 ** 78.6 490 ns Yes 41.6 3 37.6 2 100.0 1 Use of rainwater harvesting technologies (water pans, rock/roof catchment) No 87.4 935 ns 91.7 444 ns 78.6 491 Yes 77.6 6 77.6 6 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 425 % N Siga % N Siga % N Siga Table A7.3b. Percentage of households living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line by household background characteristics - MC RFSA Areas MC-Total Turkana Samburu Use of flood-based farming technologies (spate irrigation) No 87.3 939 ns 91.5 448 ns 78.6 491 Yes 100.0 2 100.0 2 Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes No 87.2 931 ns 91.3 440 ns 78.6 491 Yes 100.0 10 100.0 10 Use of drought early warning systems or information No 87.2 935 ns 91.4 444 ns 78.6 491 ns Yes 100.0 6 100.0 6 Improved NRM practices Reseeding degraded lands with drought resistant grass species No 87.4 928 ns 91.5 449 ns 78.6 479 ns Yes 85.6 13 100.0 1 79.5 12 Fencing off pasture plots to conserve pasture No 87.9 897 * 91.4 438 ns 80.1 459 * Yes 74.9 44 95.2 12 61.6 32 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands (soil/water conservation) No 87.3 932 ns 91.4 446 ns 78.6 486 ns Yes 93.2 9 100.0 4 76.7 5 Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) No 87.7 929 * 91.4 447 ns 79.5 482 ** Yes 60.4 12 100.0 3 28.7 9 Use of natural barriers/cover crops (grass strips/crop covers) No 87.5 917 ns 91.3 437 ns 79.4 480 * Yes 84.1 24 100.0 13 45.9 11 Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay or other crop residues No 87.6 928 ns 91.5 443 ns 79.2 485 ** Yes 69.2 13 89.4 7 24.8 6 Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw) No 87.5 933 ns 91.5 447 ns 79.2 486 * Yes 61.9 8 100.0 3 26.5 5 Zaï pits (pot-holing) No 87.4 940 ns 91.5 449 ns 78.6 491 ns Yes 100.0 1 100.0 1 Use of minimum tillage practices (leave crop residue on soil surface) No 87.5 924 ns 91.6 438 ns 78.7 486 ns Yes 80.4 17 84.9 12 70.9 5 Planting nitrogen-fixing trees (acacia) No 87.4 939 ns 91.5 449 ns 78.8 490 * Yes 65.0 2 100.0 1 0.0 1 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 426 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Siga % N Siga % N Siga Table A7.3b. Percentage of households living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line by household background characteristics - MC RFSA Areas MC-Total Turkana Samburu Household access to group-based credit and/or savings Household participated in group-based savings programs No 88.9 904 *** 92.1 446 *** 81.7 458 *** Yes 35.4 37 39.8 4 33.9 33 Household participated in group-based credit programs No 88.3 905 *** 91.8 442 ns 80.5 463 ** Yes 61.8 36 76.6 8 53.6 28 Household participated in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 89.2 884 *** 92.1 440 ** 82.3 444 *** Yes 53.2 57 66.8 10 46.5 47 Household exposure to COVID-19 impacts Household income/livelihood impacted by COVID-19 No 89.2 481 ns 92.8 240 ns 81.0 241 ns Yes 85.6 460 90.2 210 76.4 250 Household access to food impacted by COVID-19 No 87.4 423 ns 92.1 206 ns 77.2 217 ns Yes 87.3 518 91.1 244 79.6 274 Household member contracted COVID-19 virus in 90 days prior to survey No 87.5 928 ns 91.7 444 ns 78.5 484 ns Yes 81.1 13 77.8 6 86.9 7 Total 87.4 941 91.5 450 78.6 491 NOTES: a Significance tests (chi-square) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (poverty) and the disaggregate variable (e.g, urban/rural residence). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30. Analytical sample includes a subsample of cases for which there are no missing values on any of the variables. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 427 At or Above Poverty Line Below Poverty Line Sig.a Total N At or Above Poverty Line Below Poverty Line Sig.a Total N At or Above Poverty Line Below Poverty Line Sig.a Total N Average age of household head 48.9 47.0 ns 47.5 1,113 47.5 47.7 ns 47.6 720 50.9 45.5 * 47.1 393 Average number of adult females in household 1.4 1.3 * 1.3 1,113 1.4 1.2 ns 1.3 720 1.4 1.3 * 1.3 393 Average number of adult males in household 1.6 1.3 * 1.4 1,113 1.7 1.3 * 1.4 720 1.5 1.4 ns 1.4 393 Average number of children under five in household 0.8 1.2 *** 1.1 1,113 0.8 1.2 *** 1.1 720 0.9 1.2 * 1.1 393 Average number of children 5-17 2.5 2.9 ** 2.8 1,113 2.3 2.7 ** 2.6 720 2.7 3.3 ns 3.1 393 Average score - Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.7 3.5 ns 3.6 1,113 4.0 3.7 ns 3.8 720 3.3 3.1 ns 3.2 393 Average score - social bonding index 68.8 70.5 ns 70.1 1,113 66.0 70.2 ns 69.3 720 72.9 71.1 ns 71.6 393 Average score - social bridging index 67.0 67.3 ns 67.2 1,113 63.9 66.4 ns 65.9 720 71.4 69.1 ns 69.8 393 Average score - overall social capital index 67.9 68.9 ns 68.6 1,113 64.9 68.3 ns 67.6 720 72.1 70.1 ns 70.7 393 Average score - absorptive capacity index 42.9 35.5 * 37.3 1,113 38.6 32.2 ns 33.7 720 49.0 42.4 ns 44.4 393 Average score - adaptive capacity index 41.3 32.4 ** 34.6 1,113 38.4 31.0 ns 32.7 720 45.5 35.3 ** 38.4 393 Average score - transformative capacity index 41.2 31.0 ** 33.5 1,113 33.0 26.0 ns 27.6 720 52.9 41.5 *** 45.0 393 At or Above Poverty Line Below Poverty Line Sig.a Total N At or Above Poverty Line Below Poverty Line Sig.a Total N At or Above Poverty Line Below Poverty Line Sig.a Total N Average age of household head 44.6 47.8 * 47.4 941 44.3 49.2 * 48.8 450 44.9 44.3 * 44.4 491 Average number of adult females in household 1.4 1.2 ns 1.2 941 1.5 1.2 ns 1.2 450 1.4 1.2 ns 1.2 491 Average number of adult males in household 1.6 1.1 * 1.2 941 1.6 1.1 ns 1.1 450 1.6 1.1 ns 1.2 491 Average number of children under five in household 1.1 1.2 ns 1.2 941 1.2 1.2 ns 1.2 450 1.0 1.1 ns 1.1 491 Average number of children 5-17 3.0 3.0 ns 3.0 941 3.4 2.9 ns 3.0 450 2.7 3.0 ns 2.9 491 Average score - Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.8 3.6 ns 3.7 941 3.8 3.7 ns 3.7 450 3.8 3.5 ns 3.6 491 Average score - social bonding index 71.5 71.3 ns 71.3 941 61.7 69.0 * 68.4 450 79.7 76.8 ns 77.4 491 Average score - social bridging index 70.3 70.0 ns 70.0 941 62.6 68.5 ns 68.0 450 76.7 73.8 ns 74.4 491 Average score - overall social capital index 70.9 70.6 ns 70.7 941 62.2 68.8 ns 68.2 450 78.2 75.3 ns 75.9 491 Average score - absorptive capacity index 55.0 28.6 *** 31.9 941 51.9 26.5 *** 28.6 450 57.7 33.7 *** 38.9 491 Average score - adaptive capacity index 54.8 28.1 *** 31.5 941 51.8 25.8 *** 28.0 450 57.3 33.9 *** 38.9 491 Average score - transformative capacity index 44.0 26.6 *** 28.8 941 42.7 25.0 ** 26.5 450 45.0 30.7 *** 33.8 491 NOTES: a Significance tests (t-tests) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (poverty) and the disaggregate variables (e.g, absorptive capacity index). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30. Analytical sample includes a subsample of cases for which there are no missing values on any of the variables. Table A7.3c. Averages (mean values) of household background characteristics by household poverty status ($1.90 poverty line), by RFSA area and county [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 428 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a Cattle Improved livestock breeds/species 1.3 1.8 1.3 ns 1.2 2.3 1.3 ns 1.3 3.4 1.3 ns Livestock health services and products 11.5 7.3 11.1 ns 11.2 9.3 11.1 ns 11.1 9.2 11.1 ns Improved shelters 4.2 1.7 3.9 ns 4.1 2.1 3.9 ns 4.0 0.0 3.9 ns Improved calving techniques 2.6 0.0 2.4 ns 2.6 0.0 2.4 ns 2.4 0.0 2.4 ns Improved milking techniques 0.2 2.2 0.4 ns 0.2 2.8 0.4 * 0.4 0.0 0.4 ns Nutritious pasture varieties 2.7 1.0 2.5 ns 2.7 0.0 2.5 ns 2.4 5.4 2.5 ns Utilization of set grazing areas 32.2 37.7 32.8 ns 32.7 33.6 32.8 ns 32.2 60.2 32.8 * Improved fodder production 1.1 3.4 1.3 ns 1.0 4.4 1.3 * 1.2 9.2 1.3 * Solarized boreholes for livestock 6.3 4.3 6.1 ns 6.5 1.7 6.1 ns 5.9 15.9 6.1 ns Water pans for livestock 4.3 4.4 4.3 ns 4.4 4.0 4.3 ns 4.3 6.7 4.3 ns Sand dams for livestock 2.9 6.0 3.2 ns 3.2 4.2 3.2 ns 3.0 14.6 3.2 * Rock catchments for livestock 3.1 3.1 3.1 ns 3.2 2.6 3.1 ns 3.1 5.4 3.1 ns Number of responding cattle producers 533 68 601 545 56 601 588 13 601 Goats Improved livestock breeds/species 1.4 2.5 1.5 ns 1.4 2.4 1.5 ns 1.4 2.9 1.5 ns Livestock health services and products 10.4 22.1 11.5 ns 10.2 26.3 11.5 * 11.7 0.0 11.5 ns Improved shelters 5.2 5.0 5.2 ns 5.2 5.4 5.2 ns 5.2 2.9 5.2 ns Improved milking techniques 0.3 1.9 0.5 ns 0.3 2.3 0.5 ns 0.5 0.0 0.5 ns Nutritious pasture varieties 3.4 3.2 3.4 ns 3.4 2.7 3.4 ns 3.3 6.2 3.4 ns Utilization of set grazing areas 32.2 25.3 31.5 ns 32.3 22.9 31.5 ns 31.4 40.7 31.5 ns Improved fodder production 1.5 2.6 1.6 ns 1.5 3.0 1.6 ns 1.6 0.0 1.6 ns Solarized boreholes for livestock 6.5 4.7 6.3 ns 6.6 3.1 6.3 ns 6.2 16.6 6.3 * Water pans for livestock 6.7 3.9 6.5 ns 6.7 3.2 6.5 ns 6.4 10.7 6.5 ns Sand dams for livestock 3.6 18.7 5.1 *** 3.8 19.5 5.1 *** 4.9 17.6 5.1 ** Rock catchments for livestock 2.3 3.3 2.4 ns 2.4 1.8 2.4 ns 2.2 11.5 2.4 ns Number of responding goat producers 1,197 135 1,332 1,219 113 1,332 1,309 23 1,332 Table A7.4a. Percentage of livestock producers applying targeted improved management practices by access to agricultural financial services and livestock type- CRS RFSA Areas, Total [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS - Total Used any agricultural financial services in the past 12 months Used agricultural saving scheme in the past 12 months Obtained agricultural credit in the past 12 months Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 429 No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a Table A7.4a. Percentage of livestock producers applying targeted improved management practices by access to agricultural financial services and livestock type- CRS RFSA Areas, Total [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS - Total Used any agricultural financial services in the past 12 months Used agricultural saving scheme in the past 12 months Obtained agricultural credit in the past 12 months Camels Improved livestock breeds/species 0.6 1.7 0.7 ns 0.6 2.5 0.7 ns 0.7 0.0 0.7 ns Livestock health services and products 8.3 10.0 8.4 ns 8.2 14.7 8.4 ns 8.5 0.0 8.4 ns Improved shelters 5.2 4.5 5.2 ns 5.1 6.6 5.2 ns 5.3 0.0 5.2 ns Improved calving techniques 0.3 0.0 0.2 ns 0.3 0.0 0.2 ns 0.3 0.0 0.2 ns Improved milking techniques 0.4 3.3 0.6 * 0.4 4.8 0.6 ** 0.6 0.0 0.6 ns Nutritious pasture varieties 3.0 0.0 2.8 ns 2.9 0.0 2.8 ns 2.8 0.0 2.8 ns Utilization of set grazing areas 36.2 25.6 35.6 ns 36.2 21.2 35.6 ns 35.8 26.4 35.6 ns Improved fodder production 0.7 1.8 0.8 ns 0.7 2.7 0.8 ns 0.8 0.0 0.8 ns Solarized boreholes for livestock 8.1 6.6 8.0 ns 8.2 3.2 8.0 ns 7.9 17.8 8.0 ns Water pans for livestock 6.8 1.8 6.5 ns 6.7 0.0 6.5 ns 6.5 7.5 6.5 ns Sand dams for livestock 3.1 9.6 3.5 * 3.3 8.1 3.5 ns 3.3 16.9 3.5 ** Rock catchments for livestock 2.6 5.9 2.8 ns 2.9 0.0 2.8 ns 2.5 23.9 2.8 * Number of responding camel producers 629 40 669 639 30 669 660 9 669 NOTES: Excludes practices that are not adopted by any farmers. a Significance tests (chi-square) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (application of targeted improved management practice; e.g., improved shelters) and the disaggregate variable (access to agricultural financial service, e.g., credit). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 430 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a Cattle Improved livestock breeds/species 1.9 1.9 1.9 ns 1.8 2.7 1.9 ns 1.9 0.0 1.9 ns Livestock health services and products 12.7 9.4 12.4 ns 12.3 13.2 12.4 ns 12.6 0.0 12.4 ns Improved shelters 6.2 2.8 5.9 ns 6.0 4.0 5.9 ns 6.0 0.0 5.9 ns Improved calving techniques 3.9 0.0 3.5 ns 3.8 0.0 3.5 ns 3.6 0.0 3.5 ns Improved milking techniques 0.3 3.7 0.6 * 0.3 5.2 0.6 * 0.6 0.0 0.6 ns Nutritious pasture varieties 3.4 1.7 3.2 ns 3.4 0.0 3.2 ns 3.1 8.1 3.2 ns Utilization of set grazing areas 41.3 40.9 41.3 ns 41.8 34.2 41.3 ns 40.8 66.2 41.3 ns Improved fodder production 1.4 0.0 1.3 ns 1.4 0.0 1.3 ns 1.3 0.0 1.3 ns Solarized boreholes for livestock 9.3 7.3 9.1 ns 9.5 3.2 9.1 ns 8.8 23.8 9.1 ns Water pans for livestock 6.2 5.8 6.2 ns 6.3 5.2 6.2 ns 6.1 10.0 6.2 ns Sand dams for livestock 3.0 6.3 3.3 ns 3.3 2.4 3.3 ns 2.9 21.8 3.3 ** Rock catchments for livestock 4.6 5.2 4.7 ns 4.7 4.9 4.7 ns 4.6 8.1 4.7 ns Number of responding cattle producers 344 38 382 353 29 382 374 8 382 Goats Improved livestock breeds/species 1.7 5.6 1.9 * 1.7 6.6 1.9 * 1.9 3.4 1.9 ns Livestock health services and products 9.7 11.4 9.8 ns 9.5 16.3 9.8 ns 9.9 0.0 9.8 ns Improved shelters 6.4 9.5 6.6 ns 6.3 12.2 6.6 ns 6.6 3.4 6.6 ns Improved milking techniques 0.4 4.3 0.7 * 0.4 6.2 0.7 ** 0.7 0.0 0.7 ns Nutritious pasture varieties 3.9 5.5 4.0 ns 3.9 4.9 4.0 ns 3.9 7.4 4.0 ns Utilization of set grazing areas 38.7 41.5 38.9 ns 38.7 41.7 38.9 ns 38.8 44.2 38.9 ns Improved fodder production 1.6 1.0 1.6 ns 1.6 1.4 1.6 ns 1.6 0.0 1.6 ns Solarized boreholes for livestock 8.5 10.6 8.6 ns 8.6 8.5 8.6 ns 8.4 19.8 8.6 * Water pans for livestock 7.2 5.9 7.1 ns 7.2 4.6 7.1 ns 7.0 12.8 7.1 ns Sand dams for livestock 3.7 11.1 4.2 * 3.9 9.9 4.2 ns 3.9 18.1 4.2 ** Rock catchments for livestock 3.0 7.4 3.3 ns 3.2 5.0 3.3 ns 3.1 13.7 3.3 ns Number of responding goat producers 851 64 915 868 47 915 897 18 915 Table A7.4b. Percentage of livestock producers applying targeted improved management practices by access to agricultural financial services and livestock type- CRS RFSA Areas, Marsabit [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Marsabit Used any agricultural financial services in the past 12 months Used agricultural saving scheme in the past 12 months Obtained agricultural credit in the past 12 months Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 431 No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a Table A7.4b. Percentage of livestock producers applying targeted improved management practices by access to agricultural financial services and livestock type- CRS RFSA Areas, Marsabit [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Marsabit Used any agricultural financial services in the past 12 months Used agricultural saving scheme in the past 12 months Obtained agricultural credit in the past 12 months Camels Improved livestock breeds/species 0.7 2.0 0.7 ns 0.6 3.1 0.7 ns 0.7 0.0 0.7 ns Livestock health services and products 8.4 12.0 8.5 ns 8.2 18.8 8.5 ns 8.6 0.0 8.5 ns Improved shelters 5.5 5.4 5.5 ns 5.5 8.4 5.5 ns 5.6 0.0 5.5 ns Improved calving techniques 0.3 0.0 0.3 ns 0.3 0.0 0.3 ns 0.3 0.0 0.3 ns Improved milking techniques 0.4 3.9 0.6 * 0.4 6.1 0.6 ** 0.6 0.0 0.6 ns Nutritious pasture varieties 3.1 0.0 3.0 ns 3.1 0.0 3.0 ns 3.0 0.0 3.0 ns Utilization of set grazing areas 37.6 25.7 37.0 ns 37.5 22.7 37.0 ns 37.2 22.3 37.0 ns Improved fodder production 0.8 0.0 0.7 ns 0.8 0.0 0.7 ns 0.8 0.0 0.7 ns Solarized boreholes for livestock 8.6 7.9 8.5 ns 8.7 4.1 8.5 ns 8.4 21.0 8.5 ns Water pans for livestock 7.2 2.2 6.9 ns 7.1 0.0 6.9 ns 6.9 8.8 6.9 ns Sand dams for livestock 3.3 11.6 3.7 * 3.5 10.3 3.7 ns 3.5 19.8 3.7 ** Rock catchments for livestock 2.7 7.1 2.9 ns 3.0 0.0 2.9 ns 2.6 28.1 2.9 ** Number of responding camel producers 578 32 610 587 23 610 603 7 610 NOTES: Excludes practices that are not adopted by any farmers. a Significance tests (chi-square) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (application of targeted improved management practice; e.g., improved shelters) and the disaggregate variable (access to agricultural financial service, e.g., credit). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 432 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a Cattle Improved livestock breeds/species 0.0 1.6 0.2 * 0.0 1.8 0.2 * 0.0 10.4 0.2 *** Livestock health services and products 9.0 4.3 8.4 ns 8.9 4.7 8.4 ns 8.1 27.9 8.4 ns Nutritious pasture varieties 1.2 0.0 1.0 ns 1.2 0.0 1.0 ns 1.1 0.0 1.0 ns Utilization of set grazing areas 13.3 32.9 15.7 * 13.5 32.9 15.7 * 15.1 48.1 15.7 ** Improved fodder production 0.3 8.5 1.3 *** 0.3 9.4 1.3 *** 0.8 27.9 1.3 *** Water pans for livestock 0.3 2.3 0.6 ns 0.3 2.6 0.6 ns 0.6 0.0 0.6 ns Sand dams for livestock 2.9 5.6 3.2 ns 2.8 6.2 3.2 ns 3.3 0.0 3.2 ns Number of responding cattle producers 189 30 219 192 27 219 214 5 219 Goats Improved livestock breeds/species 0.4 0.0 0.3 ns 0.4 0.0 0.3 ns 0.3 0.0 0.3 ns Livestock health services and products 12.6 30.7 16.1 ** 12.5 32.1 16.1 ** 16.2 0.0 16.1 ns Improved shelters 1.7 1.3 1.6 ns 1.7 1.4 1.6 ns 1.7 0.0 1.6 ns Nutritious pasture varieties 1.9 1.3 1.8 ns 1.9 1.4 1.8 ns 1.8 0.0 1.8 ns Utilization of set grazing areas 12.5 12.4 12.5 ns 12.6 12.0 12.5 ns 12.4 22.3 12.5 ns Improved fodder production 1.2 3.8 1.7 ns 1.2 4.0 1.7 ns 1.7 0.0 1.7 ns Solarized boreholes for livestock 0.6 0.0 0.5 ns 0.6 0.0 0.5 ns 0.5 0.0 0.5 ns Water pans for livestock 5.3 2.3 4.7 ns 5.3 2.4 4.7 ns 4.8 0.0 4.7 ns Sand dams for livestock 3.3 24.7 7.5 *** 3.4 25.2 7.5 *** 7.4 15.1 7.5 ns Number of responding goat producers 346 71 417 351 66 417 412 5 417 Camels Livestock health services and products 7.3 0.0 6.3 ns 7.2 0.0 6.3 ns 6.5 0.0 6.3 ns Utilization of set grazing areas 12.8 24.9 14.5 ns 14.4 15.4 14.5 ns 13.4 50.0 14.5 ** Improved fodder production 0.0 11.1 1.6 ** 0.0 12.5 1.6 ** 1.6 0.0 1.6 ns Number of responding camel producers 51 8 59 52 7 59 57 2 59 NOTES: Excludes practices that are not adopted by any farmers. a Significance tests (chi-square) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (application of targeted improved management practice; e.g., improved shelters) and the disaggregate variable (access to agricultural financial service, e.g., credit). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. Table A7.4c. Percentage of livestock producers applying targeted improved management practices by access to agricultural financial services and livestock type- CRS RFSA Areas, Isiolo [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Used any agricultural financial services in the past 12 months Used agricultural saving scheme in the past 12 months Obtained agricultural credit in the past 12 months Isiolo Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 433 No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a Cattle Improved livestock breeds/species 2.3 13.7 4.0 *** 2.5 12.8 4.0 *** 3.0 32.5 4.0 *** Livestock health services and products 30.0 47.6 32.6 * 30.1 47.8 32.6 * 32.1 48.5 32.6 ns Improved shelters 13.1 15.0 13.4 ns 13.3 14.2 13.4 ns 13.2 20.8 13.4 ns Improved calving techniques 0.3 6.0 1.2 ** 0.3 6.4 1.2 *** 0.7 16.1 1.2 *** Improved milking techniques 0.2 4.7 0.9 *** 0.2 5.0 0.9 *** 0.3 16.1 0.9 *** Nutritious pasture varieties 1.7 8.7 2.8 * 1.7 9.3 2.8 ** 2.5 9.2 2.8 ns Utilization of set grazing areas 13.9 20.4 14.8 ns 14.0 19.9 14.8 ns 14.1 36.2 14.8 ns Improved fodder production 0.5 6.8 1.4 *** 0.5 7.2 1.4 *** 1.5 0.0 1.4 ns Solarized boreholes for livestock 1.9 3.2 2.1 ns 1.9 3.4 2.1 ns 2.2 0.0 2.1 ns Water pans for livestock 8.8 19.3 10.3 ns 9.2 17.1 10.3 ns 9.4 38.3 10.3 * Sand dams for livestock 5.4 7.2 5.6 ns 5.6 6.0 5.6 ns 5.6 7.3 5.6 ns Rock catchments for livestock 2.3 0.0 2.0 ns 2.3 0.0 2.0 ns 2.1 0.0 2.0 ns Number of responding cattle producers 372 68 440 376 64 440 426 14 440 Goats Improved livestock breeds/species 0.9 6.3 1.3 *** 1.0 5.7 1.3 ** 1.1 23.3 1.3 *** Livestock health services and products 12.0 33.9 13.5 *** 12.0 36.1 13.5 *** 13.5 12.6 13.5 ns Improved shelters 16.3 21.6 16.7 ns 16.4 21.2 16.7 ns 16.5 37.0 16.7 ns Improved calving techniques 0.0 0.9 0.1 *** 0.1 0.0 0.1 ns 0.0 6.5 0.1 *** Improved milking techniques 0.1 1.9 0.3 *** 0.1 2.1 0.3 *** 0.3 0.0 0.3 ns Nutritious pasture varieties 1.3 3.2 1.4 ns 1.2 3.5 1.4 ns 1.4 0.0 1.4 ns Utilization of set grazing areas 13.0 14.1 13.1 ns 13.0 14.3 13.1 ns 12.9 28.3 13.1 ns Improved fodder production 0.1 1.1 0.2 ns 0.1 1.2 0.2 ns 0.2 0.0 0.2 ns Solarized boreholes for livestock 0.8 0.0 0.8 ns 0.8 0.0 0.8 ns 0.8 0.0 0.8 ns Water pans for livestock 4.3 10.3 4.7 ns 4.3 10.0 4.7 ns 4.5 24.9 4.7 *** Sand dams for livestock 1.6 3.1 1.7 ns 1.6 3.4 1.7 ns 1.7 0.0 1.7 ns Rock catchments for livestock 1.8 0.8 1.7 ns 1.8 0.8 1.7 ns 1.7 0.0 1.7 ns Number of responding goat producers 868 85 953 875 78 953 940 13 953 Camels Livestock health services and products 16.3 65.6 17.5 ** 16.3 65.6 17.5 ** 17.5 … 17.5 Improved shelters 13.6 18.8 13.7 ns 13.6 18.8 13.7 ns 13.7 … 13.7 Utilization of set grazing areas 9.8 0.0 9.5 ns 9.8 0.0 9.5 ns 9.5 … 9.5 Solarized boreholes for livestock 0.9 0.0 0.9 ns 0.9 0.0 0.9 ns 0.9 … 0.9 Water pans for livestock 3.5 0.0 3.4 ns 3.5 0.0 3.4 ns 3.4 … 3.4 Sand dams for livestock 1.5 0.0 1.4 ns 1.5 0.0 1.4 ns 1.4 … 1.4 Rock catchments for livestock 3.5 0.0 3.4 ns 3.5 0.0 3.4 ns 3.4 … 3.4 Number of responding camel producers 133 6 139 133 6 139 139 …. 139 NOTES: Excludes practices that are not adopted by any farmers. a Significance tests (chi-square) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (application of targeted improved management practice; e.g., improved shelters) and the disaggregate variable (access to agricultural financial service, e.g., credit). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. Table A7.4d. Percentage of livestock producers applying targeted improved management practices by access to agricultural financial services and livestock type- MC RFSAs Areas, Total [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] MC - Total Used any agricultural financial services in the past 12 months Used agricultural saving scheme in the past 12 months Obtained agricultural credit in the past 12 months IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 434 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a Cattle Livestock health services and products 8.6 0.0 8.4 ns 8.6 0.0 8.4 ns 8.4 … 8.4 Improved shelters 32.5 0.0 31.8 ns 32.5 0.0 31.8 ns 31.8 … 31.8 Nutritious pasture varieties 4.3 0.0 4.2 ns 4.3 0.0 4.2 ns 4.2 … 4.2 Utilization of set grazing areas 2.2 0.0 2.2 ns 2.2 0.0 2.2 ns 2.2 … 2.2 Improved fodder production 2.2 100.0 4.4 *** 2.2 100.0 4.4 *** 4.4 … 4.4 Number of responding cattle producers 38 1 39 38 1 39 39 39 Goats Livestock health services and products 4.2 20.2 4.7 ns 4.2 22.8 4.7 * 4.7 0.0 4.7 ns Improved shelters 19.7 38.9 20.3 ns 19.6 43.9 20.3 ns 20.3 0.0 20.3 ns Improved milking techniques 0.2 6.1 0.4 *** 0.2 6.9 0.4 *** 0.4 0.0 0.4 ns Nutritious pasture varieties 1.6 10.1 1.8 * 1.6 11.4 1.8 * 1.8 0.0 1.8 ns Utilization of set grazing areas 10.2 0.0 9.9 ns 10.2 0.0 9.9 ns 9.9 0.0 9.9 ns Improved fodder production 0.2 0.0 0.2 ns 0.2 0.0 0.2 ns 0.2 0.0 0.2 ns Solarized boreholes for livestock 0.1 0.0 0.1 ns 0.1 0.0 0.1 ns 0.1 0.0 0.1 ns Water pans for livestock 2.5 5.8 2.6 ns 2.5 6.5 2.6 ns 2.7 0.0 2.6 ns Rock catchments for livestock 1.4 0.0 1.3 ns 1.4 0.0 1.3 ns 1.3 0.0 1.3 ns Number of responding goat producers 433 14 447 435 12 447 446 1 447 Camels Livestock health services and products 8.3 … 8.3 8.3 … 8.3 8.3 … 8.3 Improved shelters 19.3 … 19.3 19.3 … 19.3 19.3 … 19.3 Utilization of set grazing areas 3.9 … 3.9 3.9 … 3.9 3.9 … 3.9 Water pans for livestock 1.6 … 1.6 1.6 … 1.6 1.6 … 1.6 Rock catchments for livestock 2.2 … 2.2 2.2 … 2.2 2.2 … 2.2 Number of responding camel producers 55 … 55 55 … 55 55 … 55 NOTES: Excludes practices that are not adopted by any farmers. a Significance tests (chi-square) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (application of targeted improved management practice; e.g., improved shelters) and the disaggregate variable (access to agricultural financial service, e.g., credit). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. Table A7.4e. Percentage of livestock producers applying targeted improved management practices by access to agricultural financial services and livestock type- MC RFSA Areas, Turkana [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Turkana Used any agricultural financial services in the past 12 months Used agricultural saving scheme in the past 12 months Obtained agricultural credit in the past 12 months Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 435 No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a No Yes Total Sig.a Cattle Improved livestock breeds/species 2.9 14.1 4.9 *** 3.2 13.2 4.9 ** 3.7 32.5 4.9 *** Livestock health services and products 35.9 49.0 38.3 ns 36.0 49.2 38.3 ns 37.8 48.5 38.3 ns Improved shelters 7.8 15.4 9.1 ns 8.0 14.6 9.1 ns 8.6 20.8 9.1 ns Improved calving techniques 0.4 6.2 1.4 ** 0.4 6.6 1.4 ** 0.8 16.1 1.4 ** Improved milking techniques 0.3 4.8 1.1 *** 0.2 5.1 1.1 *** 0.4 16.1 1.1 *** Nutritious pasture varieties 1.0 9.0 2.4 ** 1.0 9.6 2.4 ** 2.1 9.2 2.4 ns Utilization of set grazing areas 17.1 21.0 17.8 ns 17.2 20.5 17.8 ns 17.0 36.2 17.8 ns Improved fodder production 0.0 4.1 0.7 *** 0.0 4.4 0.7 *** 0.8 0.0 0.7 ns Solarized boreholes for livestock 2.4 3.3 2.6 ns 2.4 3.5 2.6 ns 2.7 0.0 2.6 ns Water pans for livestock 11.2 19.9 12.7 ns 11.8 17.6 12.7 ns 11.7 38.3 12.7 ns Sand dams for livestock 6.9 7.5 7.0 ns 7.1 6.2 7.0 ns 7.0 7.3 7.0 ns Rock catchments for livestock 3.0 0.0 2.5 ns 3.0 0.0 2.5 ns 2.6 0.0 2.5 ns Number of responding cattle producers 334 67 401 338 63 401 387 14 401 Goats Improved livestock breeds/species 3.3 9.2 4.1 ns 3.5 8.2 4.1 ns 3.5 26.6 4.1 ** Livestock health services and products 31.3 40.2 32.6 ns 31.1 42.0 32.6 ns 33.1 14.4 32.6 ns Improved shelters 8.2 13.7 9.0 ns 8.7 11.3 9.0 ns 8.1 42.3 9.0 ** Improved calving techniques 0.0 1.4 0.2 * 0.2 0.0 0.2 ns 0.0 7.4 0.2 *** Nutritious pasture varieties 0.5 0.0 0.4 ns 0.5 0.0 0.4 ns 0.4 0.0 0.4 ns Utilization of set grazing areas 19.8 20.6 19.9 ns 19.8 20.5 19.9 ns 19.6 32.3 19.9 ns Improved fodder production 0.0 1.6 0.2 * 0.0 1.7 0.2 * 0.2 0.0 0.2 ns Solarized boreholes for livestock 2.6 0.0 2.2 ns 2.5 0.0 2.2 ns 2.3 0.0 2.2 ns Water pans for livestock 8.6 12.3 9.1 ns 8.7 11.6 9.1 ns 8.6 28.4 9.1 * Sand dams for livestock p p y y 5.6 4.5 5.5 ns 5.6 4.8 5.5 ns 5.6 0.0 5.5 ns farmers. 2.8 1.1 2.6 ns 2.8 1.2 2.6 ns 2.6 0.0 2.6 ns Number of responding goat producers 435 71 506 440 66 506 494 12 506 Camels Livestock health services and products 31.6 65.6 34.0 ns 31.6 65.6 34.0 ns 34.0 … 34.0 Improved shelters 2.5 18.8 3.7 ns 2.5 18.8 3.7 ns 3.7 … 3.7 Utilization of set grazing areas 21.1 0.0 19.6 ns 21.1 0.0 19.6 ns 19.6 … 19.6 Solarized boreholes for livestock 2.6 0.0 2.5 ns 2.6 0.0 2.5 ns 2.5 … 2.5 Water pans for livestock 7.1 0.0 6.6 ns 7.1 0.0 6.6 ns 6.6 … 6.6 Sand dams for livestock 4.3 0.0 3.9 ns 4.3 0.0 3.9 ns 3.9 … 3.9 Rock catchments for livestock 5.9 0.0 5.5 ns 5.9 0.0 5.5 ns 5.5 … 5.5 Number of responding camel producers 78 6 84 78 6 84 84 84 NOTES: Excludes practices that are not adopted by any farmers. a Significance tests (chi-square) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (application of targeted improved management practice; e.g., improved shelters) and the disaggregate variable (access to agricultural financial service, e.g., credit). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. Table A7.4f. Percentage of livestock producers applying targeted improved management practices by access to agricultural financial services and livestock type- MC RFSA Areas, Samburu [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] Samburu Used any agricultural financial services in the past 12 months Used agricultural saving scheme in the past 12 months Obtained agricultural credit in the past 12 months IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 436 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Women's background characteristics Women's age groups 15 -19 years 7.3 255 ns 2.9 142 ns 13.1 113 ns 3.1 162 ns 3.2 67 ns 3.0 95 ns 20 - 29 years 4.2 364 2.8 235 7.4 129 2.5 310 0.0 127 6.6 183 30 - 49 years 7.0 501 2.8 326 16.2 175 4.7 372 3.8 190 6.9 182 Women's highest level of education Never attended school 3.2 736 ** 1.7 526 ns 8.1 210 ns 1.7 592 *** 1.4 303 ns 2.4 289 *** Pre-primary or primary 11.5 286 7.3 132 15.3 154 6.3 163 6.0 63 6.6 100 Post-primary/vocational or secondary 13.4 82 4.1 36 21.8 46 11.9 66 10.0 15 12.9 51 College or University 8.1 16 0.0 9 18.9 7 20.2 23 0.0 3 26.8 20 Pregnancy status Currently pregnant 8.6 116 ns 1.5 80 ns 26.5 36 ns 2.7 96 ns 3.2 46 ns 1.7 50 ns Ever pregnant but not currently 5.6 715 3.3 463 10.7 252 3.5 577 2.5 258 5.3 319 Never pregnant 6.4 289 2.0 160 12.5 129 4.8 171 1.9 80 10.0 91 Participation in income-generating activities Cash or combination of cash & in-kind 20.0 85 *** 5.5 50 ns 40.0 35 ** 4.7 219 ns 3.0 110 ns 8.6 109 ns In-kind or unpaid 10.1 11 10.6 10 0.0 1 7.4 22 8.3 17 0.0 5 Does not work 4.9 1,024 2.4 643 9.7 381 3.0 603 1.7 257 5.1 346 Participation in income generating activities Does not participate in cash earning activities 4.9 1,035 ** 2.6 653 ns 9.7 382 ** 3.2 625 ns 2.2 274 ns 5.0 351 ns Participates in cash earning activities 20.0 85 5.5 50 40.0 35 4.7 219 3.0 110 8.6 109 Household background characteristics Residence Rural 5.0 1,010 * 2.9 671 ns 10.4 339 ns 3.5 735 ns 2.8 349 ns 5.1 386 ns Urban 14.1 110 0.0 32 18.6 78 4.4 109 0.0 35 9.4 74 Gendered household type Both 6.4 997 ns 2.8 616 ns 13.0 381 ns 4.0 720 ns 2.5 334 ns 7.0 386 ns Female Only 5.3 100 3.9 66 9.2 34 1.5 113 2.2 47 0.0 66 Male Only 0.0 23 0.0 21 0.0 2 0.0 9 0.0 2 0.0 7 Child only 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0 1 Household head sex Male 6.5 807 ns 3.3 487 ns 12.4 320 ns 4.4 536 ns 3.0 238 ns 6.9 298 ns Female 5.1 313 1.6 216 13.8 97 2.4 308 1.6 146 4.3 162 Household head educational level Never attended school 4.3 882 *** 1.7 600 *** 11.0 282 ns 1.2 630 *** 0.9 325 *** 2.0 305 ** Pre-primary or primary 10.8 143 5.8 58 14.2 85 10.8 119 16.2 30 7.3 89 Post-primary/vocational or secondary 15.5 59 10.8 33 22.5 26 17.2 44 14.6 16 20.0 28 College or University 20.4 36 24.8 12 17.7 24 10.8 51 0.0 13 21.1 38 Household food security Household food consumption score group Poor food consumption (0-28) 1.6 103 ns 1.2 95 ns 11.0 8 ns 0.0 292 *** 0.0 173 * 0.0 119 ** Borderline food consumption (28.5-42) 4.6 149 2.9 111 10.6 38 2.4 180 2.4 80 2.3 100 Acceptable food consumption (42.5-112) 7.0 868 3.1 497 12.9 371 7.8 372 5.8 131 10.2 241 Household is moderately or severely food insecure No 9.1 147 ns 3.7 82 ns 16.7 65 ns 13.5 77 *** 0.0 13 ns 22.6 64 *** Yes 5.7 973 2.7 621 12.0 352 2.8 767 2.6 371 3.2 396 Household poverty status Household living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line No 10.9 323 ** 4.0 209 ns 23.0 114 * 17.5 135 *** 11.1 34 ** 22.5 101 *** Yes 4.2 797 2.3 494 8.1 303 1.2 709 1.5 350 0.6 359 Table A7.5a. Percentage of women 15-49 years with minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W) by women's and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 437 % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.5a. Percentage of women 15-49 years with minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W) by women's and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Agricultural assets Raises any of the targeted livestock commodities (cattle, goats, camels) No 17.0 65 * 0.0 17 ns 21.6 48 ns 5.8 150 ns 1.6 65 ns 10.5 85 ns Yes 5.5 1,055 2.8 686 11.3 369 3.2 694 2.6 319 4.6 375 Household raises cattle No 7.3 675 ns 2.9 434 ns 16.7 241 ns 3.6 534 ns 2.7 351 ns 7.4 183 ns Yes 4.1 445 2.6 269 6.8 176 3.8 310 0.0 33 4.9 277 Household raises goats No 15.2 100 * 5.8 26 ns 18.0 74 ns 6.6 182 ns 1.6 66 ns 10.9 116 * Yes 5.3 1,020 2.7 677 11.5 343 2.9 662 2.6 318 3.8 344 Household raises camels No 10.3 558 *** 3.0 196 ns 14.3 362 ns 4.0 755 ns 2.7 347 ns 6.4 408 ns Yes 2.5 562 2.7 507 0.0 55 0.8 89 0.0 37 2.2 52 Agricultural financial services Accessed agri-related financial services No 4.9 977 *** 2.7 644 ns 10.0 333 ** 2.4 740 *** 1.8 366 ** 3.7 374 ** Yes 15.4 143 3.9 59 23.6 84 14.9 104 14.9 18 14.9 86 Accessed agri-related loan No 6.2 1,093 ns 2.9 682 ns 12.6 411 ns 3.2 830 *** 2.0 382 *** 5.6 448 ns Yes 4.0 27 0.0 21 22.6 6 36.6 14 100.0 2 18.5 12 Participated in agri-savings scheme No 4.8 1,001 *** 2.6 664 ns 9.9 337 ** 2.7 745 *** 2.2 369 ns 3.7 376 ** Yes 18.6 119 6.2 39 24.4 80 12.8 99 7.3 15 15.2 84 Value chain interventions Household adopted at least one value chain intervention No 5.5 1,056 * 2.9 654 ns 10.6 402 *** 3.3 834 *** 2.4 382 ns 5.0 452 *** Yes 15.7 64 1.3 49 62.0 15 35.1 10 0.0 2 56.6 8 Any crop or livestock value chain Contract farming No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.5 833 ns 2.4 381 ns 5.6 452 ns Yes 13.2 11 0.0 3 18.0 8 Selling products through community farmer associations No 5.8 1,112 *** 2.8 702 ns 11.7 410 *** 3.6 834 ns 2.5 378 ns 5.7 456 ns Yes 63.9 8 0.0 1 68.6 7 9.3 10 0.0 6 30.4 4 Sorting and grading No 5.8 1,102 * 2.8 689 ns 11.5 413 *** 3.7 840 ns 2.4 381 ns 6.0 459 ns Yes 24.0 18 0.0 14 88.6 4 0.0 4 0.0 3 0.0 1 Bulking No 6.3 1,082 ns 2.8 671 ns 12.9 411 ns 3.6 841 * 2.4 383 ns 5.7 458 *** Yes 1.7 38 1.9 32 0.0 6 30.5 3 0.0 1 62.3 2 Use of improved record keeping, budgeting and financial management No 6.2 1,116 ns 2.8 702 ns 12.8 414 ns 3.7 839 ns 2.4 383 ns 6.0 456 ns Yes 0.0 4 0.0 1 0.0 3 0.0 5 0.0 1 0.0 4 Use of training and extension services No 6.1 1,116 ns 2.8 699 ns 12.7 417 3.6 842 * 2.4 384 5.8 458 ns Yes 0.0 4 0.0 4 34.7 2 34.7 2 Fodder production value chain Use of improved pasture inputs (e.g., quality seeds) No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.4 837 *** 2.4 383 ns 5.3 454 *** Yes 42.0 7 0.0 1 57.0 6 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 438 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.5a. Percentage of women 15-49 years with minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W) by women's and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Use of mechanized pasture harvesting and baling technologies No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.5 839 *** 2.4 384 5.6 455 *** Yes 46.1 5 46.1 5 Construction and use of hay stores by farmer organizations No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.6 844 2.4 384 6.0 460 Yes Use of fodder seeds No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.4 837 *** 2.4 384 5.3 453 *** Yes 49.6 7 49.6 7 Use of harvesting, drying, packaging, storage, and marketing technologies No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.7 843 ns 2.4 383 ns 6.0 460 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Improved livestock management practices Used improved livestock breeds/species No 5.9 1,096 ns 2.4 680 ** 12.8 416 ns 3.6 832 ns 2.4 384 5.8 448 ns Yes 14.5 24 15.4 23 0.0 1 11.9 12 11.9 12 Used livestock health services and products No 5.4 1,004 ns 2.9 624 ns 10.6 380 ** 3.3 691 ns 2.6 364 ns 5.1 327 ns Yes 11.4 116 2.2 79 27.2 37 5.6 153 0.0 20 8.2 133 Used improved livestock shelters No 6.5 1,058 ns 3.0 643 ns 12.8 415 ns 3.3 764 ns 2.1 333 ns 5.4 431 ns Yes 0.0 62 0.0 60 0.0 2 6.3 80 4.4 51 14.2 29 Used improved calving techniques No 6.2 1,111 ns 2.8 694 ns 12.7 417 3.7 841 ns 2.4 384 6.0 457 ns Yes 0.0 9 0.0 9 0.0 3 0.0 3 Used improved milking techniques No 6.2 1,113 ns 2.8 696 ns 12.7 417 3.7 840 ns 2.4 382 ns 6.0 458 ns Yes 0.0 7 0.0 7 0.0 4 0.0 2 0.0 2 Used nutritious pasture varieties No 6.0 1,072 ns 2.4 661 ** 12.7 411 ns 3.6 829 ns 2.5 375 ns 5.6 454 * Yes 9.5 48 8.6 42 15.9 6 7.9 15 0.0 9 31.4 6 Used set grazing areas No 6.8 796 ns 2.1 418 ns 13.0 378 ns 3.8 727 ns 2.5 347 ns 6.5 380 ns Yes 4.5 324 3.9 285 9.9 39 2.6 117 2.2 37 3.2 80 Used improved fodder production No 6.0 1,092 ns 2.6 680 * 12.6 412 ns 3.6 837 ns 2.4 382 ns 5.8 455 * Yes 11.4 28 9.6 23 19.9 5 9.6 7 0.0 2 18.5 5 Used solarized boreholes for livestock No 6.6 1,028 * 3.1 612 ns 12.7 416 ns 3.7 834 ns 2.4 383 ns 6.1 451 ns Yes 1.1 92 1.1 91 0.0 1 0.0 10 0.0 1 0.0 9 Used water pans for livestock No 5.9 1,042 ns 2.7 636 ns 11.9 406 * 3.7 799 ns 2.5 378 ns 6.1 421 ns Yes 8.7 78 3.5 67 36.4 11 3.4 45 0.0 6 4.6 39 Used sand dams for livestock No 6.0 1,048 ns 3.0 656 ns 12.1 392 ns 3.6 823 ns 2.4 384 6.1 439 ns Yes 8.2 72 0.0 47 21.5 25 3.9 21 3.9 21 Used rock catchments for livestock No 6.4 1,077 ns 2.9 660 ns 12.7 417 3.7 823 ns 2.5 380 ns 6.0 443 ns Yes 0.0 43 0.0 43 3.4 21 0.0 4 5.3 17 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 439 % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.5a. Percentage of women 15-49 years with minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W) by women's and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Improved post harvest handling and storage practices Used aflatoxin prevention and control No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.7 843 ns 2.4 384 6.0 459 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Used aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers during transportation No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.7 843 ns 2.4 384 6.0 459 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Used well-equipped food storage structures (rodent proof; proper air circulation) No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.5 842 *** 2.4 384 5.6 458 *** Yes 100.0 2 100.0 2 Applied temperature and humidity control (shed nets, air condition, fans) No 6.1 1,119 ns 2.8 703 12.8 416 ns 3.6 844 2.4 384 6.0 460 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Used solar drying for grains and pulses No 6.1 1,117 ns 2.8 703 12.6 414 ns 3.6 828 ns 2.3 369 ns 6.0 459 ns Yes 36.0 3 36.0 3 5.1 16 5.4 15 0.0 1 Improved crop management practices Improved/certified seed No 6.1 1,119 ns 2.8 703 12.7 416 ns 3.4 806 ns 2.3 356 ns 5.5 450 * Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 7.9 38 4.0 28 22.4 10 Seedling production and transplantation No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.5 839 ** 2.2 381 *** 6.0 458 ns Yes 25.3 5 36.5 3 0.0 2 Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) No 6.1 1,118 * 2.8 703 12.6 415 ns 3.5 831 * 2.1 372 * 6.0 459 ns Yes 46.0 2 46.0 2 13.2 13 13.9 12 0.0 1 Kitchen gardens using sunken pits No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.7 839 ns 2.5 379 ns 6.0 460 Yes 0.0 5 0.0 5 Use of organic manure No 6.1 1,118 ns 2.8 703 12.8 415 ns 3.5 812 ns 2.2 361 ns 5.9 451 ns Yes 0.0 2 0.0 2 8.0 32 7.6 23 9.5 9 Soil testing No 6.1 1,118 *** 2.8 703 12.5 415 *** 3.5 841 ** 2.2 381 *** 6.0 460 Yes 50.0 2 50.0 2 40.3 3 40.3 3 Application of inoculant No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.5 842 *** 2.2 382 *** 6.0 460 Yes 50.0 2 50.0 2 Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies No 6.1 1,118 ns 2.8 703 12.8 415 ns 3.7 843 ns 2.4 383 ns 6.0 460 Yes 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0 1 Use of rainwater harvesting technologies (water pans, rock/roof catchment) No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.7 837 ns 2.5 377 ns 6.0 460 Yes 0.0 7 0.0 7 Use of flood-based farming technologies (spate irrigation) No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.7 842 ns 2.4 382 ns 6.0 460 Yes 0.0 2 0.0 2 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 440 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.5a. Percentage of women 15-49 years with minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W) by women's and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.4 834 *** 2.1 374 *** 6.0 460 Yes 17.3 10 17.3 10 Use of drought early warning systems or information No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.5 840 ** 2.2 380 ** 6.0 460 Yes 23.2 4 23.2 4 Improved NRM practices Reseeding degraded lands with drought resistant grass species No 5.7 1,112 *** 2.8 702 ns 11.6 410 *** 3.6 831 ns 2.4 383 ns 5.9 448 ns Yes 37.6 8 0.0 1 44.3 7 8.0 13 0.0 1 9.8 12 Fencing off pasture plots to conserve pasture No 6.2 1,095 ns 2.8 685 ns 12.9 410 ns 3.4 796 ns 2.2 372 ns 5.9 424 ns Yes 2.8 25 3.5 18 0.0 7 8.1 48 10.0 12 6.9 36 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands (soil/water conservation) No 5.9 1,099 ns 2.6 683 ns 12.4 416 * 3.7 835 ns 2.5 380 ns 6.0 455 ns Yes 16.7 21 10.1 20 100.0 1 0.0 9 0.0 4 0.0 5 Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) No 6.2 1,108 ns 2.8 691 ns 12.7 417 3.6 835 ns 2.5 382 ns 5.8 453 ns Yes 0.0 12 0.0 12 8.8 9 0.0 2 16.3 7 Use of natural barriers/cover crops (grass strips/crop covers) No 6.1 1,117 ns 2.8 700 ns 12.7 417 3.8 818 ns 2.5 369 ns 6.1 449 ns Yes 0.0 3 0.0 3 0.0 26 0.0 15 0.0 11 Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay or other crop residues No 6.0 1,117 * 2.8 701 ns 12.4 416 ** 3.4 832 ** 2.1 378 ** 5.8 454 ns Yes 36.0 3 0.0 2 100.0 1 23.9 12 28.4 6 17.8 6 Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw). No 6.1 1,118 ns 2.8 701 ns 12.7 417 3.5 836 ** 2.4 382 ns 5.6 454 ** Yes 0.0 2 0.0 2 21.3 8 0.0 2 34.0 6 Zaï pits (pot-holing) No 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.6 844 2.4 384 6.0 460 Yes Use of minimum tillage practices (leave crop residue on soil surface) 6.1 1,118 ns 2.8 702 ns 12.8 416 ns 3.4 829 *** 2.1 374 ** 5.8 455 ns No 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0 1 20.3 15 19.9 10 21.3 5 Yes Planting nitrogen-fixing trees (acacia) 6.1 1,118 *** 2.8 703 12.5 415 *** 3.5 842 *** 2.2 383 *** 6.0 459 ns No 50.0 2 50.0 2 62.2 2 100.0 1 0.0 1 Yes Household access to credit and/or savings Household participated in group-based savings programs No 6.1 1,065 ns 2.8 698 ns 13.3 367 ns 3.4 808 * 2.5 381 ns 5.5 427 ns Yes 6.5 55 0.0 5 7.4 50 9.7 36 0.0 3 11.3 33 Household participated in group-based credit programs No 6.2 1,075 ns 2.9 679 ns 12.8 396 ns 3.6 804 ns 2.5 375 ns 5.9 429 ns Yes 4.4 45 0.0 24 10.8 21 4.4 40 0.0 9 6.7 31 Household participated in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 6.3 1,040 ns 2.9 674 ns 13.3 366 ns 3.5 788 ns 2.5 374 ns 5.7 414 ns Yes 4.2 80 0.0 29 7.3 51 6.0 56 0.0 10 8.3 46 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 441 % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.5a. Percentage of women 15-49 years with minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W) by women's and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Household exposure to COVID-19 impacts Household income/livelihood impacted by COVID-19 No 4.3 635 ns 3.1 436 ns 7.5 199 ns 3.8 408 ns 3.1 202 ns 5.2 206 ns Yes 8.5 485 2.3 267 16.8 218 3.5 436 1.8 182 6.6 254 Household access to food impacted by COVID-19 No 4.2 484 ns 2.3 333 ns 9.2 151 ns 3.9 357 ns 2.3 173 ns 7.3 184 ns Yes 7.5 636 3.2 370 14.7 266 3.5 487 2.6 211 5.1 276 Household member contracted COVID-19 virus in 90 days prior to survey No 6.1 1109 ns 2.8 695 ns 12.4 414 ns 3.7 834 ns 2.5 382 ns 6.1 452 ns Yes 14.6 11 0.0 8 49.3 3 0.0 10 0.0 2 0.0 8 Total 6.1 1,120 2.8 703 12.7 417 3.6 844 2.4 384 6.0 460 NOTES: a Significance tests (chi-square) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (percentage of women achieving MDD) and the disaggregate variable (e.g, sex). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30. Analytical sample includes a subsample of cases for which there are no missing values on any of the variables. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 442 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Women without MDD Women with MDD All women 15-49 years N Sig.a Women without MDD Women with MDD All women 15-49 years N Sig.a Women without MDD Women with MDD All women 15-49 years N Sig.a Average women's age 28.6 29.8 28.7 1,120 ns 29.1 30.7 29.1 703 ns 27.6 29.4 27.8 417 ns Average age of household head 44.7 48.1 44.9 1,120 ns 44.4 51.0 44.5 703 ns 45.5 46.9 45.7 417 ns Average number of adult females in household other than the respondent 0.5 0.6 0.5 1,120 ns 0.5 0.5 0.5 703 ns 0.6 0.7 0.6 417 ns Average number of adult males in household 1.2 1.6 1.3 1,120 ns 1.2 1.7 1.3 703 ns 1.3 1.6 1.3 417 ns Average number of children under five (0-4) 1.1 0.9 1.1 1,120 ns 1.1 0.9 1.1 703 ns 1.1 0.9 1.1 417 ns Number of older children (5-17) 2.6 3.0 2.6 1,120 ns 2.4 2.2 2.4 703 ns 3.0 3.3 3.0 417 ns Average FCS 53.6 68.8 54.6 1,120 *** 50.2 70.4 50.8 703 * 61.1 68.1 62.0 417 ** Average daily per capita consumption expenditures (constant 2010 USD) $1.55 $5.28 $1.78 1,120 * $1.54 $7.77 $1.71 703 ns $1.57 $4.21 $1.90 417 ns Average score - Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.6 3.4 3.6 1,120 ns 3.8 3.9 3.8 703 ns 3.2 3.2 3.2 417 ns Average score - social bonding index 70.3 63.0 69.8 1,120 * 68.9 63.7 68.7 703 ns 73.3 62.7 72.0 417 ** Average score - social bridging index 67.9 62.1 67.6 1,120 * 66.4 58.2 66.1 703 ns 71.4 63.8 70.4 417 ns Average score - overall social capital index 69.1 62.6 68.7 1,120 * 67.6 60.9 67.4 703 ns 72.4 63.3 71.2 417 * Average score - absorptive capacity index 37.0 44.3 37.4 1,120 * 33.5 42.9 33.8 703 ns 44.4 44.8 44.5 417 ns Average score - adaptive capacity index 34.3 42.9 34.8 1,120 * 32.2 42.9 32.5 703 ns 38.8 42.9 39.3 417 ns Average score - transformative capacity index 32.2 52.9 33.5 1,120 *** 27.0 45.6 27.5 703 ** 43.6 56.1 45.2 417 ** Women without MDD Women with MDD All women 15-49 years N Sig.a Women without MDD Women with MDD All women 15-49 years N Sig.a Women without MDD Women with MDD All women 15-49 years N Sig.a Average women's age 29.2 32.8 29.3 844 ns 29.9 35.3 30.0 384 ns 27.9 30.8 28.1 460 * Average age of household head 43.1 42.8 43.1 844 ns 44.4 43.2 44.4 384 ns 40.4 42.5 40.6 460 ns Average number of adult females in household other than the respondent 0.4 0.6 0.5 844 ns 0.4 0.2 0.4 384 ns 0.4 0.8 0.5 460 ns Average number of adult males in household 1.1 1.3 1.2 844 ns 1.1 1.1 1.1 384 ns 1.1 1.5 1.2 460 ns Average number of children under five (0-4) 1.2 1.0 1.2 844 ns 1.3 1.0 1.3 384 ns 1.1 1.0 1.1 460 ns Number of older children (5-17) 2.6 3.2 2.7 844 ns 2.7 3.3 2.7 384 ns 2.6 3.1 2.6 460 ns Average FCS 37.0 67.5 38.1 844 *** 34.0 61.7 34.7 384 *** 43.1 72.0 44.8 460 *** Average daily per capita consumption expenditures (constant 2010 USD) $1.03 $4.28 $1.15 844 ** $0.74 $1.64 $0.76 384 * $1.59 $6.34 $1.88 460 ** Average score - Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.7 4.1 3.7 844 ns 3.8 3.6 3.8 384 ns 3.4 4.4 3.5 460 ** Average score - social bonding index 71.9 78.4 72.1 844 ns 69.1 74.9 69.2 384 ns 77.4 81.2 77.6 460 ns Average score - social bridging index 70.5 77.2 70.7 844 ns 68.7 77.1 68.9 384 ns 73.9 77.2 74.1 460 ns Average score - overall social capital index 71.2 77.8 71.4 844 ns 68.9 76.0 69.1 384 ns 75.7 79.2 75.9 460 ns Average score - absorptive capacity index 32.7 53.2 33.5 844 *** 29.3 39.9 29.6 384 *** 39.4 63.6 40.8 460 *** Average score - adaptive capacity index 31.8 57.8 32.8 844 *** 28.2 49.1 28.7 384 *** 39.1 64.5 40.6 460 *** Average score - transformative capacity index 28.4 42.6 28.9 844 ** 25.8 29.7 25.9 384 ns 33.5 52.6 34.6 460 ** NOTES: a Significance tests (t-test) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (percentage of women achieving MDD) and the disaggregate variable (e.g., average daily per capita consumption expenditures). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30. Analytical sample includes a subsample of cases for which there are no missing values on any of the variables. Table A7.5b. Average (mean) values of household background characteristics by women with a minimim dietary diet (MDD) and women without MDD, by RFSA area and county [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS - Total Marsabit Isiolo MC - Total Turkana Samburu Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 443 % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Child background characteristics Sex Male 4.0 159 ns 1.5 107 ns 9.6 52 ns 2.4 120 ns 2.2 65 ns 3.1 55 ns Female 1.8 137 1.9 86 1.7 51 1.6 114 0.0 52 5.3 62 Age group in months 6-8 0.8 53 * 0.0 33 ns 2.0 20 ns 1.1 48 ns 0.0 23 ns 3.6 25 ns 9-11 1.2 52 0.0 40 4.7 12 0.0 33 0.0 14 0.0 19 12-17 6.1 112 4.4 72 9.8 40 2.2 86 0.0 43 7.4 43 18-23 1.2 79 0.0 48 3.7 31 3.4 67 3.6 37 2.8 30 Household background characteristics Residence Rural 2.7 270 ns 0.9 182 *** 7.7 88 ns 2.3 214 ns 1.3 109 ns 4.8 105 ns Urban 4.7 26 15.5 11 0.0 15 0.0 20 0.0 8 0.0 12 Gendered household type Both 2.8 271 ns 1.8 176 ns 4.9 95 ns 2.3 209 ns 1.3 103 ns 4.6 106 ns Female Only 6.0 19 0.0 12 19.7 7 0.0 22 0.0 14 0.0 8 Male Only 0.0 6 0.0 5 0.0 1 0.0 3 0.0 3 Household head sex Male 2.9 243 ns 1.6 158 ns 5.7 85 ns 2.6 170 ns 1.7 79 ns 4.4 91 ns Female 3.2 53 1.9 35 5.7 18 0.7 64 0.0 38 3.4 26 Household head educational level Never attended school 2.0 230 ns 0.9 162 ** 5.1 68 ns 1.5 189 ns 1.3 105 ns 2.1 84 ns Pre-primary or primary 5.6 41 0.0 17 9.4 24 2.4 26 0.0 8 5.2 18 Post-primary/vocational or secondary 5.5 18 10.6 9 0.0 9 13.7 7 0.0 1 21.1 6 College or University 16.3 7 22.5 5 0.0 2 4.9 12 0.0 3 10.0 9 Household food security Household food consumption score group Poor food consumption (0-28) 2.0 30 ns 0.0 27 ns 29.7 3 ns 0.0 80 ns 0.0 57 ns 0.0 23 ns Borderline food consumption (28.5-42) 0.0 44 0.0 37 0.0 7 1.2 49 0.0 18 2.9 31 Acceptable food consumption (42.5-112) 3.8 222 2.5 129 5.6 93 4.4 105 3.2 42 6.2 63 Household is moderately or severely food insecure No 12.4 33 ** 12.6 15 ** 12.3 18 ns 4.4 15 ns 0.0 3 ns 7.5 12 ns Yes 1.9 263 0.9 178 4.4 85 1.9 219 1.2 114 3.7 105 Household poverty status Household living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line No 6.8 48 ns 6.2 33 ** 7.9 15 ns 8.2 33 * 0.0 8 ns 15.3 25 ** Yes 2.2 248 0.9 160 5.1 88 1.2 201 1.3 109 1.0 92 Agricultural assets Household raises any of the targeted livestock commodities (cattle, goats, camels) No 9.9 17 ns 0.0 3 ns 11.1 14 ns 3.8 35 ns 0.0 16 ns 9.3 19 ns Yes 2.5 279 1.7 190 4.5 89 1.8 199 1.3 101 3.0 98 Household raises cattle No 3.5 179 ns 2.0 125 ns 7.3 54 ns 1.7 150 ns 1.3 107 ns 4.5 43 ns Yes 2.0 117 1.0 68 3.6 49 3.0 84 0.0 10 4.0 74 Household raises goats No 6.7 27 ns 0.0 6 ns 8.0 21 ns 4.8 41 ns 0.0 16 ns 10.4 25 ns Yes 2.6 269 1.7 187 4.9 82 1.5 193 1.3 101 2.2 92 Household raises camels No 5.8 151 ** 5.9 64 * 5.7 87 ns 2.2 214 ns 1.2 110 ns 4.7 104 ns Yes 0.4 145 0.0 129 5.6 16 0.0 20 0.0 7 0.0 13 Table A7.6a. Percentage of children 6-23 months with a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) by child and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 444 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.6a. Percentage of children 6-23 months with a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) by child and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Agricultural financial services Accessed agri-related financial services No 3.2 273 ns 1.8 180 ns 6.4 93 ns 1.9 211 ns 1.2 112 ns 3.9 99 ns Yes 0.0 23 0.0 13 0.0 10 3.2 23 0.0 5 5.6 18 Accessed agri-related loan No 3.0 291 ns 1.7 188 ns 5.7 103 2.0 232 ns 1.2 117 4.3 115 ns Yes 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 2 0.0 2 Participated in agri-savings scheme No 3.2 277 ns 1.7 184 ns 6.4 93 ns 1.9 212 ns 1.2 113 ns 3.9 99 ns Yes 0.0 19 0.0 9 0.0 10 3.4 22 0.0 4 5.6 18 Value chain interventions Household adopted at least one value chain intervention No 3.0 268 ns 1.4 168 ns 6.0 100 ns 2.0 233 ns 1.2 116 ns 4.2 117 Yes 2.6 28 3.2 25 0.0 3 0.0 1 0.0 1 Any crop or livestock value chain Contract farming No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes Selling products through community farmer associations No 3.0 295 ns 1.7 193 5.7 102 ns 2.0 233 ns 1.2 116 ns 4.2 117 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 Sorting and grading No 3.1 286 ns 1.8 185 ns 5.9 101 ns 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes 0.0 10 0.0 8 0.0 2 Bulking No 2.8 280 ns 1.4 177 ns 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes 5.4 16 5.4 16 Use of improved record keeping, budgeting and financial management No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 233 ns 1.2 116 ns 4.2 117 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Use of training and extension services No 3.0 293 ns 1.7 190 ns 5.7 103 2.0 233 ns 1.2 117 4.2 116 ns Yes 0.0 3 0.0 3 0.0 1 0.0 1 Fodder production value chain Use of improved pasture inputs (e.g., quality seeds) No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes Use of mechanized pasture harvesting and baling technologies No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes Construction and use of hay stores by farmer organizations No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes Use of fodder seeds No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 445 % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.6a. Percentage of children 6-23 months with a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) by child and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Use of harvesting, drying, packaging, storage, and marketing technologies No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 233 ns 1.2 116 ns 4.2 117 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Improved livestock management practices Used improved livestock breeds/species No 3.1 286 ns 1.8 183 ns 5.7 103 1.8 229 * 1.2 117 3.5 112 ns Yes 0.0 10 0.0 10 20.4 5 20.4 5 Used livestock health services and products No 3.4 265 ns 1.9 168 ns 6.5 97 ns 1.7 193 ns 1.2 114 ns 3.6 79 ns Yes 0.0 31 0.0 25 0.0 6 4.5 41 0.0 3 5.6 38 Used improved livestock shelters No 2.9 279 ns 1.4 176 ns 5.7 103 2.2 218 ns 1.3 107 ns 4.4 111 ns Yes 4.3 17 4.3 17 0.0 16 0.0 10 0.0 6 Used improved calving techniques No 3.0 291 ns 1.7 188 ns 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes 0.0 5 0.0 5 Used improved milking techniques No 3.0 295 ns 1.7 192 ns 5.7 103 2.0 233 ns 1.2 116 ns 4.2 117 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 Used nutritious pasture varieties No 3.1 280 ns 1.8 177 ns 5.7 103 2.1 230 ns 1.2 115 ns 4.3 115 ns Yes 0.0 16 0.0 16 0.0 4 0.0 2 0.0 2 Used set grazing areas No 3.0 189 ns 1.5 98 ns 4.9 91 ns 1.1 197 * 0.0 106 *** 4.2 91 ns Yes 2.9 107 1.9 95 11.3 12 8.2 37 11.6 11 4.0 26 Used improved fodder production No 2.7 293 ** 1.3 190 *** 5.7 103 2.0 233 ns 1.2 116 ns 4.2 117 Yes 25.6 3 25.6 3 0.0 1 0.0 1 Used solarized boreholes for livestock No 2.9 275 ns 1.3 173 ns 5.7 102 ns 2.1 230 ns 1.2 117 4.4 113 ns Yes 4.0 21 4.1 20 0.0 1 0.0 4 0.0 4 Used water pans for livestock No 3.2 272 ns 1.9 172 ns 5.9 100 ns 2.1 222 ns 1.2 116 ns 4.6 106 ns Yes 0.0 24 0.0 21 0.0 3 0.0 12 0.0 1 0.0 11 Used sand dams for livestock No 3.2 278 ns 1.8 181 ns 6.1 97 ns 2.1 228 ns 1.2 117 4.5 111 ns Yes 0.0 18 0.0 12 0.0 6 0.0 6 0.0 6 Used rock catchments for livestock No 3.1 283 ns 1.8 180 ns 5.7 103 2.1 228 ns 1.2 116 ns 4.4 112 ns Yes 0.0 13 0.0 13 0.0 6 0.0 1 0.0 5 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 446 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.6a. Percentage of children 6-23 months with a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) by child and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Used aflatoxin prevention and control No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes Used aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers during transportation No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 233 ns 1.2 117 4.3 116 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Used well-equipped food storage structures (rodent proof; proper air circulation) No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes Applied temperature and humidity control (shed nets, air condition, fans) No 3.0 295 ns 1.7 193 5.8 102 ns 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Used solar drying for grains and pulses No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.1 230 ns 1.2 113 ns 4.2 117 Yes 0.0 4 0.0 4 Improved crop management practices Improved/certified seed No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.1 225 ns 1.2 109 ns 4.3 116 ns Yes 0.0 9 0.0 8 0.0 1 Seedling production and transplantation No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.1 232 ns 1.2 115 ns 4.2 117 Yes 0.0 2 0.0 2 Kitchen gardens using sunken pits No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.1 232 ns 1.2 115 ns 4.2 117 Yes 0.0 2 0.0 2 Use of organic manure No 3.0 295 ns 1.7 193 5.8 102 ns 2.1 228 ns 1.2 113 ns 4.3 115 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 6 0.0 4 0.0 2 Soil testing No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes Application of inoculant No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes Use of rainwater harvesting technologies (water pans, rock/roof catchment) No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 233 ns 1.2 116 ns 4.2 117 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Use of flood-based farming technologies (spate irrigation) No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes Improved post-harvest handling and storage Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 447 % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.6a. Percentage of children 6-23 months with a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) by child and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.1 229 ns 1.2 112 ns 4.2 117 Yes 0.0 5 0.0 5 Use of drought early warning systems or information No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes Improved NRM practices Reseeding degraded lands with drought resistant grass species No 3.0 295 ns 1.7 193 5.8 102 ns 2.1 231 ns 1.2 117 4.3 114 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 3 0.0 3 Fencing off pasture plots to conserve pasture No 3.1 287 ns 1.7 184 ns 5.7 103 2.1 224 ns 1.2 117 4.6 107 ns Yes 0.0 9 0.0 9 0.0 10 0.0 10 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands (soil/water conservation) No 2.8 286 ns 1.3 183 ** 5.7 103 2.0 232 ns 1.2 117 4.3 115 ns Yes 11.1 10 11.1 10 0.0 2 0.0 2 Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) No 3.0 290 ns 1.7 187 ns 5.7 103 2.1 231 ns 1.2 117 4.3 114 ns Yes 0.0 6 0.0 6 0.0 3 0.0 3 Use of natural barriers/cover crops (grass strips/crop covers) No 3.0 295 ns 1.7 192 ns 5.7 103 2.1 227 ns 1.2 112 ns 4.3 115 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 7 0.0 5 0.0 2 Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay or other crop residues No 3.0 295 ns 1.7 193 5.7 102 ns 2.0 232 ns 1.2 116 ns 4.2 116 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0 1 Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw). No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 233 ns 1.2 117 4.2 116 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Zaï pits (pot-holing) No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes Use of minimum tillage practices (leave crop residue on soil surface) No 3.0 295 ns 1.7 192 ns 5.7 103 2.0 233 ns 1.2 117 4.2 116 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 Planting nitrogen-fixing trees (acacia) No 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 Yes IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 448 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.6a. Percentage of children 6-23 months with a minimum acceptable diet (MAD) by child and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Household access to credit and/or savings Household participated in group-based savings programs No 3.1 284 ns 1.7 192 ns 6.2 92 ns 1.8 223 ns 1.2 115 ns 3.6 108 ns Yes 0.0 12 0.0 1 0.0 11 7.4 11 0.0 2 10.5 9 Household participated in group-based credit programs No 3.0 291 ns 1.7 190 ns 5.7 101 ns 1.8 223 ns 1.2 115 ns 3.5 108 ns Yes 0.0 5 0.0 3 0.0 2 8.5 11 0.0 2 12.6 9 Household participated in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 3.1 281 ns 1.7 189 ns 6.2 92 ns 1.9 218 ns 1.2 114 ns 3.7 104 ns Yes 0.0 15 0.0 4 0.0 11 5.3 16 0.0 3 7.6 13 Household exposure to COVID-19 impacts Household income/livelihood impacted by COVID-19 No 4.2 177 ns 2.0 117 ns 9.6 60 ns 3.2 116 ns 2.4 60 ns 5.3 56 ns Yes 1.2 119 1.1 76 1.3 43 0.9 118 0.0 57 3.2 61 Household access to food impacted by COVID-19 No 2.7 144 ns 0.8 99 ns 7.3 45 ns 1.6 99 ns 0.0 54 ns 6.0 45 ns Yes 3.3 152 2.6 94 4.3 58 2.3 135 2.0 63 3.0 72 Household member contracted COVID-19 virus in 90 days prior to survey No 3.0 292 ns 1.7 191 ns 5.8 101 ns 2.1 230 ns 1.2 116 ns 4.3 114 ns Yes 0.0 4 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.0 4 0.0 1 0.0 3 Total 3.0 296 1.7 193 5.7 103 2.0 234 1.2 117 4.2 117 NOTES: a Significance tests (chi-square) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (percentage of children achieving MAD) and the disaggregate variable (e.g.,sex). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30. Analytical sample includes a subsample of cases for which there are no missing values on any of the variables. Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 449 Children without MAD Children with MAD All children 6-23 months N Sig.a Children without MAD Children with MAD All children 6-23 months N Sig.a Children without MAD Children with MAD All children 6-23 months N Sig.a Average age of household head 39.1 34.2 39.0 296 ns 39.7 39.0 39.7 193 ns 37.9 31.2 37.5 103 * Average number of adult females in household 1.1 1.0 1.1 296 *** 1.2 1.0 1.1 193 ** 1.1 1.0 1.1 103 ** Average number of adult males in household 1.1 1.1 1.1 296 ns 1.1 1.6 1.1 193 * 1.1 0.8 1.1 103 ns Average number of children under five other than the child 0.8 0.7 0.8 296 ns 0.8 0.5 0.8 193 ns 0.8 0.9 0.8 103 ns Number of older children (5-17) 2.1 2.1 2.1 296 ns 2.1 2.4 2.1 193 ns 2.3 1.8 2.2 103 ns Average FCS 53.2 68.1 53.7 296 * 50.4 65.5 50.6 193 *** 59.4 69.7 60.0 103 ns Average daily per capita consumption expenditures (constant 2010 USD) $1.43 $1.55 $1.43 296 ns $1.18 $1.69 $1.19 193 ns $1.96 $1.47 $1.93 103 ns Average score - Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.5 3.8 3.5 296 ns 3.6 4.3 3.6 193 ** 3.3 3.5 3.3 103 ns Average score - social bonding index 71.0 64.8 70.9 296 ns 70.7 77.8 70.8 193 ns 71.8 56.9 71.0 103 * Average score - social bridging index 66.5 60.6 66.3 296 ns 64.7 77.8 64.9 193 ns 70.3 50.0 69.2 103 *** Average score - overall social capital index 68.8 62.7 68.6 296 ns 67.7 77.8 67.9 193 ns 71.1 53.4 70.1 103 *** Average score - absorptive capacity index 37.2 48.2 37.5 296 ** 34.1 63.3 34.6 193 *** 43.9 38.9 43.6 103 ns Average score - adaptive capacity index 33.9 43.1 34.2 296 ns 32.2 58.3 32.6 193 *** 37.6 33.7 37.3 103 ns Average score - transformative capacity index 32.4 47.6 32.8 296 ** 27.9 55.0 28.3 193 *** 42.1 43.0 42.1 103 ns Children without MAD Children with MAD All children 6-23 months N Sig.a Children without MAD Children with MAD All children 6-23 months N Sig.a Children without MAD Children with MAD All children 6-23 months N Sig.a Average age of household head 39.0 48.8 39.2 234 ns 39.8 45.0 39.8 117 * 37.0 51.4 37.6 117 ** Average number of adult females in household 1.2 1.2 1.2 234 ns 1.2 1.0 1.2 117 ** 1.1 1.4 1.1 117 ns Average number of adult males in household 1.0 1.7 1.0 234 ns 1.0 1.0 1.0 117 ns 1.0 2.1 1.1 117 ns Average number of children under five other than the child 0.9 0.4 0.9 234 ns 0.9 0.0 0.9 117 *** 0.8 0.7 0.8 117 ns Number of older children (5-17) 2.1 3.9 2.1 234 ** 2.0 5.0 2.1 117 *** 2.2 3.2 2.2 117 ns Average FCS 37.5 58.8 38.0 234 ** 34.3 59.5 34.6 117 *** 45.7 58.4 46.3 117 ns Average daily per capita consumption expenditures (constant 2010 USD) $0.82 $2.30 $0.85 234 ns $0.68 $0.28 $0.67 117 *** $1.18 $3.67 $1.28 117 * Average score - Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.7 3.9 3.7 234 ns 3.7 3.2 3.7 117 ** 3.6 4.4 3.6 117 ns Average score - social bonding index 73.4 77.0 73.5 234 ns 72.9 75.0 73.0 117 ns 74.6 78.3 74.8 117 ns Average score - social bridging index 71.7 74.9 71.8 234 ns 71.3 75.0 71.3 117 ns 72.9 74.8 73.0 117 ns Average score - overall social capital index 72.6 75.9 72.6 234 ns 72.1 75.0 72.1 117 ns 73.8 76.5 73.9 117 ns Average score - absorptive capacity index 31.2 39.7 31.4 234 ns 28.8 20.9 28.7 117 *** 37.4 52.4 38.0 117 * Average score - adaptive capacity index 28.9 38.0 29.1 234 ns 26.1 15.1 25.9 117 *** 36.2 53.5 36.9 117 ** Average score - transformative capacity index 27.6 29.3 27.7 234 ns 26.2 13.1 26.1 117 ** 31.1 40.2 31.5 117 ns NOTES: a Significance tests (t-test) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (percentage of children achieving a MAD) and the disaggregate variable (e.g, average daily per capita consumption expenditures). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30. Analytical sample includes a subsample of cases for which there are no missing values on any of the variables. Table A7.6b. Average (mean) values of household background characteristics by children with a minimim acceptable diet (MAD) and children without MAD, by RFSA area and county [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS - Total Marsabit Isiolo MC - Total Turkana Samburu IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 450 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Child background characteristics Sex Male 8.0 159 ns 5.9 107 ns 12.6 52 ns 5.8 120 ns 4.9 65 ns 8.3 55 ns Female 5.2 137 5.0 86 5.6 51 3.4 114 1.3 52 8.1 62 Age group in months 6-8 2.0 53 * 2.0 33 ** 2.0 20 ns 1.1 48 ns 0.0 23 ns 3.6 25 ns 9-11 5.5 52 3.7 40 10.8 12 1.9 33 0.0 14 5.6 19 12-17 12.1 112 11.7 72 12.8 40 6.0 86 2.7 43 13.5 43 18-23 3.1 79 0.0 48 9.5 31 6.9 67 7.1 37 6.3 30 Household background characteristics Residence 5.5 270 ns 4.3 182 *** 8.8 88 ns 5.2 214 ns 3.5 109 ns 9.4 105 ns Rural 14.8 26 26.2 11 9.9 15 0.0 20 0.0 8 0.0 12 Urban Gendered household type 6.1 271 ns 4.9 176 ns 8.6 95 ns 5.2 209 ns 3.6 103 ns 9.0 106 ns Both 18.4 19 17.9 12 19.7 7 0.0 22 0.0 14 0.0 8 Female Only 0.0 6 0.0 5 0.0 1 0.0 3 0.0 3 Male Only Household head sex Male 6.4 243 ns 4.7 158 ns 9.9 85 ns 5.4 170 ns 3.9 79 ns 8.4 91 ns Female 8.1 53 9.4 35 5.7 18 3.0 64 1.8 38 7.4 26 Household head educational level Never attended school 4.9 230 ns 4.0 162 ** 7.4 68 ns 2.8 189 * 2.6 105 ns 3.3 84 * Pre-primary or primary 11.7 41 3.1 17 17.4 24 12.6 26 0.0 8 27.2 18 Post-primary/vocational or secondary 13.0 18 25.0 9 0.0 9 13.7 7 0.0 1 21.1 6 College or University 26.8 7 37.0 5 0.0 2 17.6 12 24.7 3 10.0 9 Household food security Household food consumption score group Poor food consumption (0-28) 2.0 30 ns 0.0 27 ns 29.7 3 ns 1.2 80 * 1.1 57 ns 2.3 23 ns Borderline food consumption (28.5-42) 0.0 44 0.0 37 0.0 7 2.5 49 0.0 18 6.2 31 Acceptable food consumption (42.5-112) 8.8 222 8.4 129 9.4 93 8.9 105 7.5 42 11.1 63 Household is moderately or severely food insecure No 21.2 33 *** 12.6 15 ns 28.3 18 ** 24.7 15 ** 28.1 3 * 22.4 12 ns Yes 5.1 263 5.0 178 5.4 85 3.4 219 2.4 114 6.3 105 Household poverty status Household living below the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line No 14.3 48 * 13.4 33 ns 16.0 15 ns 11.3 33 * 0.0 8 ns 21.1 25 ** Yes 5.2 248 4.1 160 7.5 88 3.7 201 3.5 109 4.5 92 Agricultural assets Household raises any of the targeted livestock commodities (cattle, goats, camels) No 17.6 17 ns 0.0 3 ns 19.8 14 ns 11.4 35 * 4.5 16 ns 21.6 19 * Yes 5.9 279 5.6 190 6.9 89 3.6 199 3.1 101 5.0 98 Household raises cattle No 7.0 179 ns 5.9 125 ns 9.9 54 ns 4.5 150 ns 3.5 107 ns 10.4 43 ns Yes 6.0 117 4.8 68 8.0 49 5.1 84 0.0 10 6.7 74 Household raises goats No 14.9 27 ns 0.0 6 ns 17.7 21 ns 11.7 41 * 4.5 16 ns 20.0 25 * Yes 5.8 269 5.6 187 6.4 82 3.4 193 3.1 101 4.4 92 Household raises camels No 10.9 151 ** 12.8 64 * 9.6 87 ns 5.1 214 ns 3.4 110 ns 9.2 104 ns Yes 2.9 145 2.6 129 5.6 16 0.0 20 0.0 7 0.0 13 Table A7.7a. Percentage of children 6-23 months with minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) by children's and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 451 % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.7a. Percentage of children 6-23 months with minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) by children's and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Agricultural financial services Accessed agri-related financial services No 6.5 273 ns 5.5 180 ns 8.6 93 ns 4.5 211 ns 3.4 112 ns 7.6 99 ns Yes 9.1 23 5.4 13 13.2 10 6.3 23 0.0 5 11.2 18 Accessed agri-related loan No 6.8 291 ns 5.7 188 ns 9.1 103 4.7 232 ns 3.2 117 8.3 115 ns Yes 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 2 0.0 2 Participated in agri-savings scheme No 6.4 277 ns 5.4 184 ns 8.6 93 ns 4.5 212 ns 3.4 113 ns 7.6 99 ns Yes 11.4 19 8.8 9 13.2 10 6.8 22 0.0 4 11.2 18 Value chain interventions Household adopted at least one value chain intervention No 6.4 268 ns 5.5 168 ns 8.1 100 ns 4.7 233 ns 3.3 116 ns 8.2 117 Yes 9.2 28 5.7 25 24.6 3 0.0 1 0.0 1 Any crop or livestock value chain Contract farming No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes Selling products through community farmer associations No 6.7 295 ns 5.5 193 9.3 102 ns 4.7 233 ns 3.2 116 ns 8.2 117 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 Sorting and grading No 6.5 286 ns 5.8 185 ns 8.0 101 ns 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes 9.2 10 0.0 8 32.6 2 Bulking No 6.5 280 ns 5.2 177 ns 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes 9.5 16 9.5 16 Use of improved record keeping, budgeting and financial management No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 233 ns 3.3 116 ns 8.2 117 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Use of training and extension services No 6.7 293 ns 5.6 190 ns 9.1 103 4.4 233 *** 3.2 117 7.4 116 *** Yes 0.0 3 0.0 3 100.0 1 100.0 1 Fodder production value chain Use of improved pasture inputs (e.g., quality seeds) No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes Use of mechanized pasture harvesting and baling technologies No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes Construction and use of hay stores by farmer organizations No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes Use of fodder seeds No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 452 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.7a. Percentage of children 6-23 months with minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) by children's and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Use of harvesting, drying, packaging, storage, and marketing technologies No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 233 ns 3.3 116 ns 8.2 117 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Improved livestock management practices Used improved livestock breeds/species No 6.9 286 ns 5.8 183 ns 9.1 103 4.2 229 *** 3.2 117 6.8 112 * Yes 0.0 10 0.0 10 43.8 5 43.8 5 Used livestock health services and products No 7.2 265 ns 5.7 168 ns 10.5 97 ns 4.1 193 ns 3.3 114 ns 6.9 79 ns Yes 2.9 31 4.3 25 0.0 6 9.0 41 0.0 3 11.1 38 Used improved livestock shelters No 6.8 279 ns 5.6 176 ns 9.1 103 4.8 218 ns 3.5 107 ns 7.7 111 ns Yes 4.3 17 4.3 17 3.1 16 0.0 10 15.7 6 Used improved calving techniques No 6.8 291 ns 5.6 188 ns 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes 0.0 5 0.0 5 Used improved milking techniques No 6.7 295 ns 5.5 192 ns 9.1 103 4.7 233 ns 3.2 116 ns 8.2 117 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 Used nutritious pasture varieties No 6.6 280 ns 5.2 177 ns 9.1 103 4.7 230 ns 3.3 115 ns 8.3 115 ns Yes 8.9 16 8.9 16 0.0 4 0.0 2 0.0 2 Used set grazing areas No 7.0 189 ns 5.5 98 ns 8.8 91 ns 2.8 197 *** 1.3 106 *** 7.1 91 ns Yes 6.1 107 5.5 95 11.3 12 17.3 37 20.9 11 12.7 26 Used improved fodder production No 6.5 293 ns 5.2 190 ns 9.1 103 4.7 233 ns 3.2 116 ns 8.2 117 Yes 25.6 3 25.6 3 0.0 1 0.0 1 Used solarized boreholes for livestock No 6.9 275 ns 5.7 173 ns 9.2 102 ns 4.7 230 ns 3.2 117 8.5 113 ns Yes 4.0 21 4.1 20 0.0 1 0.0 4 0.0 4 Used water pans for livestock No 6.9 272 ns 5.5 172 ns 9.6 100 ns 4.8 222 ns 3.2 116 ns 9.0 106 ns Yes 4.7 24 5.7 21 0.0 3 0.0 12 0.0 1 0.0 11 Used sand dams for livestock No 6.7 278 ns 5.2 181 ns 9.8 97 ns 4.7 228 ns 3.2 117 8.7 111 ns Yes 6.5 18 10.4 12 0.0 6 0.0 6 0.0 6 Used rock catchments for livestock No 7.0 283 ns 5.9 180 ns 9.1 103 4.7 228 ns 3.2 116 ns 8.5 112 ns Yes 0.0 13 0.0 13 0.0 6 0.0 1 0.0 5 Used aflatoxin prevention and control No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes Used aluminum cans, crates, other food grade containers during transportation No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 233 ns 3.2 117 8.3 116 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Improved post-harvest handling and storage Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 453 % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.7a. Percentage of children 6-23 months with minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) by children's and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Used well-equipped food storage structures (rodent proof; proper air circulation) No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes Applied temperature and humidity control (shed nets, air condition, fans) No 6.7 295 ns 5.5 193 9.3 102 ns 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Used solar drying for grains and pulses No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.8 230 ns 3.3 113 ns 8.2 117 Yes 0.0 4 0.0 4 Improved crop management practices Improved/certified seed No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.5 225 ns 2.9 109 ns 8.3 116 ns Yes 8.4 9 9.5 8 0.0 1 Seedling production and transplantation No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes Crop rotation (rotating grains with nitrogen fixing legumes) No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 232 ns 3.3 115 ns 8.2 117 Yes 0.0 2 0.0 2 Kitchen gardens using sunken pits No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.3 232 * 2.7 115 ** 8.2 117 Yes 41.4 2 41.4 2 Use of organic manure No 6.7 295 ns 5.5 193 9.3 102 ns 4.5 228 ns 3.3 113 ns 7.4 115 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 11.2 6 0.0 4 36.3 2 Soil testing No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes Application of inoculant No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes Use of drip or sprinkler irrigation technologies No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes Use of rainwater harvesting technologies (water pans, rock/roof catchment) No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 233 ns 3.2 116 ns 8.2 117 Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Use of flood-based farming technologies (spate irrigation) No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes Production planning and crop rotation in irrigation schemes No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.8 229 ns 3.3 112 ns 8.2 117 Yes 0.0 5 0.0 5 Use of drought early warning systems or information No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 454 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.7a. Percentage of children 6-23 months with minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) by children's and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Improved NRM practices Reseeding degraded lands with drought resistant grass species No 6.7 295 ns 5.5 193 9.4 102 ns 4.7 231 ns 3.2 117 8.5 114 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 3 0.0 3 Fencing off pasture plots to conserve pasture No 6.4 287 ns 5.1 184 ns 9.1 103 4.5 224 ns 3.2 117 7.9 107 ns Yes 15.5 9 15.5 9 11.1 10 11.1 10 Rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands (soil/water conservation) No 6.1 286 * 4.6 183 ** 9.1 103 4.7 232 ns 3.2 117 8.4 115 ns Yes 28.3 10 28.3 10 0.0 2 0.0 2 Construction of soil conservation structures (gabions) No 6.8 290 ns 5.6 187 ns 9.1 103 4.7 231 ns 3.2 117 8.5 114 ns Yes 0.0 6 0.0 6 0.0 3 0.0 3 Use of natural barriers/cover crops (grass strips/crop covers) No 6.7 295 ns 5.5 192 ns 9.1 103 4.8 227 ns 3.3 112 ns 8.4 115 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 7 0.0 5 0.0 2 Utilization of organic materials such as grain straw, fresh or old hay or other crop residues No 6.2 295 *** 5.5 193 7.7 102 ** 4.7 232 ns 3.2 116 ns 8.2 116 ns Yes 100.0 1 100.0 1 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0 1 Planting agroforestry trees and fruits (e.g., grevillea, pawpaw). No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 233 ns 3.2 117 8.3 116 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 Zaï pits (pot-holing) No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes Use of minimum tillage practices (leave crop residue on soil surface) No 6.7 295 ns 5.5 192 ns 9.1 103 4.7 233 ns 3.2 117 8.3 116 ns Yes 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 Planting nitrogen-fixing trees (acacia) No 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 Yes Household access to credit and/or savings Household participated in group-based savings programs No 6.9 284 ns 5.5 192 ns 10.0 92 ns 4.6 223 ns 3.3 115 ns 8.0 108 ns Yes 0.0 12 0.0 1 0.0 11 7.4 11 0.0 2 10.5 9 Household participated in group-based credit programs No 6.4 291 ns 5.0 190 ns 9.2 101 ns 4.5 223 ns 3.3 115 ns 7.9 108 ns Yes 23.9 5 33.1 3 0.0 2 8.5 11 0.0 2 12.6 9 Household participated in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 6.6 281 ns 5.0 189 ns 10.0 92 ns 4.6 218 ns 3.3 114 ns 8.3 104 ns Yes 9.0 15 26.8 4 0.0 11 5.3 16 0.0 3 7.6 13 Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 455 % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a % N Sig.a Table A7.7a. Percentage of children 6-23 months with minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) by children's and household background characteristics [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Household exposure to COVID-19 impacts Household income/livelihood impacted by COVID-19 No 6.2 177 ns 4.9 117 ns 9.6 60 ns 4.6 116 ns 3.6 60 ns 7.2 56 ns Yes 7.3 119 6.6 76 8.6 43 4.7 118 2.8 57 9.1 61 Household access to food impacted by COVID-19 No 5.8 144 ns 3.8 99 ns 10.8 45 ns 3.5 99 ns 2.6 54 ns 6.0 45 ns Yes 7.6 152 7.5 94 7.8 58 5.5 135 3.7 63 9.7 72 Household member contracted COVID-19 virus in 90 days prior to survey No 6.3 292 ns 5.6 191 ns 7.8 101 * 4.7 230 ns 3.2 116 ns 8.5 114 ns Yes 33.3 4 0.0 2 58.1 2 0.0 4 0.0 1 0.0 3 Total 6.7 296 5.5 193 9.1 103 4.7 234 3.2 117 8.2 117 NOTES: a Significance tests (chi-square) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (percentage of children achieving MDD) and the disaggregate variable (e.g, sex). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30. Analytical sample includes a subsample of cases for which there are no missing values on any of the variables. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 456 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Children without MDD Children with MDD All children 6-23 months N Sig.a Children without MDD Children with MDD All children 6-23 months N Sig.a Children without MDD Children with MDD All children 6-23 months N Sig.a Average age of household head 39.1 37.3 39.0 296 ns 39.9 35.8 39.7 193 ns 37.4 39.1 37.5 103 ns Average number of adult females in household 1.1 1.1 1.1 296 ns 1.2 1.0 1.1 193 ** 1.1 1.1 1.1 103 ns Average number of adult males in household 1.1 1.1 1.1 296 ns 1.1 1.0 1.1 193 ns 1.1 1.2 1.1 103 ns Average number of children under five other than the child 0.8 0.7 0.8 296 ns 0.8 0.8 0.8 193 ns 0.8 0.6 0.8 103 ns Number of older children (5-17) 2.1 1.9 2.1 296 ns 2.1 1.9 2.1 193 ns 2.3 2.0 2.2 103 ns Average FCS 52.4 71.2 53.7 296 *** 49.5 69.1 50.6 193 *** 58.6 74.0 60.0 103 * Average daily per capita consumption expenditures (constant 2010 USD) $1.19 $4.77 $1.43 296 ns $1.16 $1.77 $1.19 193 ns $1.27 $8.54 $1.93 103 ns Average score - Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.5 3.6 3.5 296 ns 3.7 3.5 3.6 193 ns 3.3 3.7 3.3 103 ns Average score - social bonding index 71.4 63.9 70.9 296 ns 71.0 68.0 70.8 193 ns 72.2 58.8 71.0 103 * Average score - social bridging index 66.9 58.8 66.3 296 ns 65.1 62.2 64.9 193 ns 70.7 54.6 69.2 103 ** Average score - overall social capital index 69.1 61.4 68.6 296 ns 68.0 65.1 67.9 193 ns 71.4 56.7 70.1 103 ** Average score - absorptive capacity index 36.6 50.2 37.5 296 *** 33.6 52.7 34.6 193 *** 43.3 47.0 43.6 103 ns Average score - adaptive capacity index 33.2 47.7 34.2 296 ** 31.6 50.2 32.6 193 *** 36.6 44.6 37.3 103 ns Average score - transformative capacity index 31.5 50.4 32.8 296 *** 27.3 45.7 28.3 193 ** 40.7 56.3 42.1 103 ns Children without MDD Children with MDD All children 6-23 months N Sig.a Children without MDD Children with MDD All children 6-23 months N Sig.a Children without MDD Children with MDD All children 6-23 months N Sig.a Average age of household head 39.1 41.1 39.2 234 ns 39.9 36.9 39.8 117 ns 36.9 45.2 37.6 117 ** Average number of adult females in household 1.2 1.1 1.2 234 ns 1.2 1.0 1.2 117 ** 1.1 1.2 1.1 117 ns Average number of adult males in household 1.0 1.3 1.0 234 ns 1.0 1.0 1.0 117 ns 1.0 1.6 1.1 117 ns Average number of children under five other than the child 0.9 0.6 0.9 234 ns 0.9 0.6 0.9 117 ns 0.8 0.6 0.8 117 ns Number of older children (5-17) 2.0 3.2 2.1 234 * 2.0 4.2 2.1 117 *** 2.2 2.2 2.2 117 ns Average FCS 37.1 54.9 38.0 234 ** 34.0 53.2 34.6 117 * 45.3 56.4 46.3 117 ns Average daily per capita consumption expenditures (constant 2010 USD) $0.81 $1.59 $0.85 234 ns $0.68 $0.53 $0.67 117 ns $1.16 $2.61 $1.28 117 ns Average score - Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index 3.7 3.5 3.7 234 ns 3.7 3.2 3.7 117 ns 3.6 3.7 3.6 117 ns Average score - social bonding index 73.1 82.2 73.5 234 ns 72.6 83.0 73.0 117 ns 74.2 81.5 74.8 117 ns Average score - social bridging index 71.5 77.1 71.8 234 ns 71.2 75.7 71.3 117 ns 72.5 78.4 73.0 117 ns Average score - overall social capital index 72.3 79.7 72.6 234 ns 71.9 79.3 72.1 117 ns 73.3 80.0 73.9 117 ns Average score - absorptive capacity index 31.1 37.8 31.4 234 ns 28.8 24.9 28.7 117 ns 36.9 50.1 38.0 117 * Average score - adaptive capacity index 28.5 41.5 29.1 234 * 25.9 27.0 25.9 117 ns 35.3 55.4 36.9 117 *** Average score - transformative capacity index 27.5 31.5 27.7 234 ns 26.4 17.7 26.1 117 ns 30.3 44.7 31.5 117 * NOTES: a Significance tests (t-test) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (percentage of children achieving MDD) and the disaggregate variable (e.g, average daily per capita consumption expenditures). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30. Analytical sample includes a subsample of cases for which there are no missing values on any of the variables. Table A7.7b.Average (mean) values of household background characteristics by children with a minimim dietary diet (MDD) and children without MDD, by RFSA area and county [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021 CRS - Total Marsabit Isiolo MC - Total Turkana Samburu Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 457 % N Siga . % N Siga . % N Siga . % N Siga . % N Siga . % N Siga . Child background characteristics Sex Male 19.9 914 ns 24.6 488 ns 14.4 426 ns 26.7 838 ns 27.3 461 ns 25.1 377 ns Female 20.2 821 24.9 423 14.9 398 23.1 825 20.7 431 28.8 394 Total 20.1 1,735 24.7 911 14.7 824 24.9 1,663 24.1 892 27 771 Age groups in months <6 8.3 160 ns 5.8 75 * 10.9 85 ns 19.9 197 *** 20 109 ** 19.6 88 ns 6-11 22.4 169 24.1 95 20.4 74 34.2 145 33.4 71 36 74 12-17 24.7 177 35.2 97 10.9 80 40.3 154 43.1 80 33.7 74 18-23 17.2 131 25.4 63 9.3 68 31.6 131 31.4 84 32.5 47 24-29 17.8 204 22.7 95 13.4 109 29.1 211 26.1 125 38.8 86 30-35 24.8 162 27.4 88 21.4 74 25.1 151 24.3 79 27.1 72 36-41 21.1 228 33.2 123 6.4 105 17.7 199 16.1 101 21.2 98 42-47 22.8 148 25.3 86 19 62 23.8 122 24.5 66 21.9 56 48-53 18.1 201 17.4 104 18.9 97 15.9 195 12.5 94 22.6 101 54-59 22.7 155 25.4 85 18.9 70 15.7 158 13.2 83 21.2 75 Total 20.1 1,735 24.7 911 14.7 824 24.9 1,663 24.1 892 27 771 Household has basic water source No 20.2 1,666 ns 24.7 881 ns 14.8 785 ns 25.1 1,582 ns 24.4 835 ns 26.8 747 ns Yes 21.5 54 26.2 28 14.1 26 20.7 75 16 55 37.1 20 Total 20.2 1,720 24.8 909 14.8 811 24.9 1,657 24 890 27.2 767 Households using at least one evidence-based household water treatment No 19.8 1,565 ns 23.7 800 ns 15.4 765 ** 24.7 1,464 ns 23.5 811 ns 28 653 ns Yes 23 168 33.1 111 3.9 57 26.5 199 29.7 81 21.6 118 Total 20.1 1,733 24.7 911 14.7 822 24.9 1,663 24.1 892 27 771 Household has access to a basic sanitation facility No 20.7 1,603 * 24.8 878 ns 15.5 725 * 25.1 1,575 ns 24 847 ns 27.8 728 ns Yes 12.2 130 22.6 33 7.8 97 22.4 88 26 45 14.2 43 Total 20.1 1,733 24.7 911 14.7 822 24.9 1,663 24.1 892 27 771 Households with soap and water at a handwashing station commonly used by family members1 No 16.8 75 ns 30.8 21 ns 12.4 54 ns 36.9 75 ns 22.4 22 ns 48 53 * Yes 24.7 28 27 25 0 3 21 88 0 9 24.4 79 Total 19 103 28.5 46 11.9 57 29.3 163 17.4 31 34.3 132 NOTES: a Significance tests (chi-square) were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (prevalence of diarrhea) and the disaggregate variable (e.g, age, sex, household WASH status). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Results are not statistically reliable where n<30. 1 Includes only households that enumerators could observe a handwashing station. Table A7.8. Prevalence of diarrhea among children under five by sex, age, and household water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facilities and practices, by RFSA area and county [Baseline Study, Kenya 2021] CRS-Total Marsabit Isiolo MC-Total Turkana Samburu Household water, sanitation, and hygiene facilities and practices IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 458 Annex G: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex H: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies 459 ANNEX H: COVID-19 KNOWLEDGE, PRACTICES, IMPACTS AND COPING STRATEGIES Knowledge of COVID-19 and adoption of mitigation practices Awareness of the COVID-19 pandemic is widespread across the CRS RFSA areas (CRS area, 97.5 percent; Marsabit, 96.0 percent; Isiolo, 99.1 percent). A minority of households in the CRS area take measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19; however, adoption of several measures is higher for households in Isiolo county. Figure A8.1 illustrates the extent of adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols for households that report being impacted by COVID-19, in the CRS RFSA area. Washing hands with soap and water was the most prevalent strategy, utilized by one-in-five households in the CRS area (Marsabit, 17.9 percent; Isiolo, 22.7 percent) (Figure A8.1). Households in Isiolo (14.2 percent) were more likely to report washing their hands more often than households in Marsabit (17.9 percent). Of households impacted by COVID-19, those in Isiolo more frequently reported avoiding contact with a sick person (Marsabit, 3.4 percent; Isiolo, 16.2 percent) or to separate from sick persons (Marsabit, 1.8 percent; Isiolo, 11.8 percent). While infrequent, households in Isiolo were also more likely to seek help from a medical clinic (Marsabit, 0.7 percent; Isiolo, 5.4 percent) and to receive vaccination to protect against COVID-19 (Marsabit, 0.8 percent; Isiolo, 3.3 percent;). Less than 5 percent of all households in the CRS area reported quarantining. Figure A8.1: Adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols, Nawiri (CRS) RFSA area * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Note: Denominator is households reporting impact to livelihood or food security from COVID-19. As shown in Figure A8.2, other than hand washing with soap and water (Turkana, 16.8 percent; Samburu, 18.9 percent), utilization of COVID-19 prevention measures was rare. Fewer than 5 percent of all households in the Mercy Corps area reported separating or having no contact with sick people, quarantining, seeking help from a medical clinic, or receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 460 Annex H: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies Figure A8.2: Adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols, Nawiri (Mercy Corps) RFSA area * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Note: Denominator is households reporting impact to livelihood or food security from COVID-19. Impact of COVID-19 on livelihoods and coping strategies Roughly half of households in the CRS area reported impact on livelihood (CRS area, 49.9 percent) due to COVID-19 (see Annex 6, Table AR6.29). Reported impact on households’ livelihoods was more prevalent in Isiolo county (58.9 percent) compared to Marsabit (41.4 percent). Inability to access markets and increased prices were the most common impacts of COVID-19 for households in the CRS area (Figure A8.3). Half of households (Marsabit, 44.4 percent; Isiolo, 53.2 percent) reported higher prices for food and other purchased items. One-third to one-half of households in the CRS area reported the inability to access livestock markets to sell product or buy inputs with those in Marsabit relatively more affected (49.2 percent) compared to households in Isiolo (29.2 percent). Households in Marsabit more frequently reported not being able to access markets for food and other necessities (34.8 percent) than households in Isiolo (19.8 percent). Nearly one-in-five households (Marsabit, 20.7 percent; Isiolo, 14.8 percent) in the CRS area reported the inability to access commodity markets to sell products or buy inputs. More households in Marsabit reported being affected by higher prices for livestock inputs (15.3 percent) compared to households in Isiolo (6.3 percent). For those that could access markets, over one-quarter of households in the CRS area reported higher prices for products sold (Marsabit, 27.8 percent; Isiolo 28.4 percent). COVID-19 more frequently led to reported reductions of income (Marsabit, 12.5 percent; Isiolo, 34.0 percent) and lost employment (Marsabit, 3.8 percent; Isiolo, 12.6 percent) in Isiolo county (see Figure A8.3). This differential impact on income and employment in may partially explain the perceived higher overall impact of COVID-19 on livelihoods for households in Isiolo relative to households in Marsabit. Other reported impacts on livelihoods caused by COVID-19 in the CRS area include an increase in transportation costs (Marsabit, 18.8 percent; Isiolo, 21.4 percent), unwillingness or fear to access health care due to perceived risks of contact (Marsabit, 14.6 percent; Isiolo, 10.3 percent), and households in Marsabit more frequently reported the inability to access health care (13.4 percent) compared to households in Isiolo (6.2 percent). Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex H: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies 461 Figure A8.3: COVID-19 related impacts on households’ livelihoods, Nawiri (CRS) RFSA area * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Note: all impacts reported by > 10% of households shown. Roughly half of all households in the MC area (MC area, 49.2 percent) reported having households livelihood impacted by COVID-19 (see Annex 6, Table AR6.29). Lack of market access and higher prices were also the most prevalent impacts in the MC area (Figure A8.4). More households in Turkana (55.7 percent) reported higher prices for food/other items relative to households in Samburu (33.7 percent), while one-quarter to one-third of households (Turkana, 27.6 percent; Samburu, 31.8 percent) observed an increase in price of products sold. Although higher food prices disproportionally impacted households in Turkana compared to Samburu, households in Samburu were more likely to report lack of access to all types of markets - food/other necessity markets (Turkana, 19.6 percent; Samburu, 35.0 percent), livestock markets to sell products or buy inputs (Turkana, 15.8 percent; Samburu, 43.2 percent), and agricultural commodity markets to sell crops or buy inputs (Turkana, 7.8 percent; Samburu, 16.9 percent). IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 462 Annex H: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies Figure A8.4: COVID-19 related impacts on households’ livelihoods, Nawiri (Mercy Corps) RFSA area * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Note: all impacts reported by > 10% of households shown. Other disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on Samburu households include employment loss (Turkana, 9.3 percent; Samburu, 18.0 percent) and higher livestock input prices (Turkana, 1.2 percent; Samburu, 10.9 percent), while households in Turkana more frequently suffered income loss (Turkana, 28.1 percent; Samburu, 16.6 percent) (Figure A8.4). One-in-five households in the Mercy Corps area reported an increase in transportation costs (Turkana, 22.3 percent; Samburu, 22.0 percent). As shown in Figure A8.5, food-based coping strategies were the most frequently reported by CRS area households used to address livelihood impacts of COVID-19. The most frequent strategy reported by CRS households to cope with loss of livelihoods due to COVID-19 was reducing household food consumption (Marsabit, 42.8 percent; Isiolo, 49.7 percent), and households in Isiolo reported sourcing food on credit (51.2 percent) more frequently than households in Marsabit (24.8 percent). Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex H: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies 463 Figure A8.5: Coping strategies for addressing livelihood impacts of COVID-19, Nawiri (CRS) RFSA area * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Note: all coping strategies reported by > 10% of households shown. Another common coping strategies utilized to deal with livelihood loss due to COVID-19 was reducing non-essential expenses, a strategy more prevalent in Isiolo (44.3 percent) compared to Marsabit (27.5 percent) (Figure A8.5). One-in-five households (Marsabit, 20.2 percent; Turkana 21.0 percent) reported selling livestock and fewer households coped by taking livestock to search for pasture (Marsabit, 11.8 percent; Isiolo, 16.0 percent). Notably, more households in Isiolo resorted to using savings to buy food (16.9 percent) compared to Marsabit households (3.7 percent). A narrower range of coping strategies were used by households in the MC area to deal with impacts on household livelihood (Figure A8.6). However, similar to the CRS area, reducing food consumption was the most frequent strategy employed, with Turkana households resorting more frequently to this strategy (Turkana, 54.9 percent; Samburu, 40.2 percent). MC households also reduced non-essential expenses (Turkana, 47.2 percent; Samburu, 40.4 percent) and purchased food on credit (Turkana, 25.8 percent; Samburu, 29.2 percent) in response to COVID-19 impact on livelihood. Households in Samburu more frequently sold livestock to offset COVID-19 impacts (Turkana, 6.9 percent; Samburu, 21.4 percent). IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 464 Annex H: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies Figure A8.6: Coping strategies for addressing livelihood impacts of COVID-19, Nawiri (Mercy Corps) RFSA area * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Note: all coping strategies reported by > 10% of households shown. Impact of COVID-19 on food security and coping strategies Figure A8.7 illustrates impacts of COVID-19 on household food security in the CRS area. By far the most frequent impact of COVID-19 on food security for CRS households was higher food prices (Marsabit, 90.4 percent; Turkana, 91.3 percent). The inability to access markets was reported by more than one-third of CRS households (Marsabit, 44.7 percent; Isiolo, 35.3 percent) and just over one-quarter (Marsabit, 28.8 percent; Isiolo, 28.9 percent) responded that traders were absent from the market. Households in Isiolo were more likely to report food security affected via COVID-19 by lack of products in the market (Marsabit, 27.3 percent; Isiolo, 49.8 percent). Roughly one-in-five households were impacted by delays in food aid (Marsabit, 22.5 percent; Isiolo, 13.6 percent). Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex H: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies 465 Figure A8.7: COVID-19 related impacts on households’ food security, Nawiri (CRS) RFSA area * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Note: all impacts reported by > 10% of households shown. Similar to the CRS area, the most acute impact of COVID-19 on household food security in the MC area was realized through higher food prices, with households in Turkana slightly more impacted (Turkana, 89.9 percent; Samburu, 80.3 percent) (Figure A8.8). Households in Samburu more frequently reported their food security impacted by market-related impacts, including, lack of market access (Turkana, 33.9 percent; Samburu, 57.5 percent), lack of product availability in markets (Turkana, 26.2 percent; Samburu, 44.9 percent), and lack of traders in markets (Turkana, 18.3 percent; Samburu, 39.0 percent). Food security of Marsabit households (29.1 percent) was more affected by delays in food aid relative to Isiolo households (10.1 percent). Figure A8.8: COVID-19 related impacts on households’ food security, Nawiri (Mercy Corps) RFSA area * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Note: all impacts reported by > 10% of households shown. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 466 Annex H: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies In the CRS area, reducing food consumption (Marsabit, 42.6 percent; Isiolo, 53.0 percent), procuring food on credit (Marsabit, 24.3 percent; Isiolo, 54.9 percent), and reducing non-food/essential household expenses (Marsabit, 26.3 percent; Isiolo, 43.6 percent) were the most frequent strategies used to deal with COVID-19 impact on food security, with households in Isiolo significantly more often resorting to the latter two tactics (Figure A8.9). Over one-in-five households in the CRS area (Marsabit, 24.2 percent; Isiolo, 21.4 percent) sold livestock to support food security due to COVID-19 related impacts. Households in Isiolo more frequently used savings to buy food as a result of impacts of COVID-19 on food security (Marsabit, 2.3 percent; Isiolo, 13.9 percent). Roughly ten percent of households in the CRS area (Marsabit, 11.5 percent, Isiolo, 9.3 percent) reported not using any coping strategies despite their food security being impacted by COVID-19. Figure A8.9: Coping strategies addressing food security impacts of COVID-19, Nawiri (CRS) RFSA area * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Note: all coping strategies reported by > 10% of households shown. Households in the MC area also most often reported coping with food security impacts of COVID-19 by reducing food consumption (Turkana, 49.7 percent; Samburu, 41.4 percent), reducing non-essential expenses (Turkana, 41.9 percent; Samburu, 40.9 percent), and purchasing food on credit (Turkana, 29.5 percent; Samburu, 27.8 percent) (Figure A8.10). Following COVID-19 impact on food security, households in Samburu were three times more likely to sell livestock to support food security (Turkana, 9.3 percent; Samburu, 27.1 percent). Baseline Survey of the Nawiri Resilience Food Security Activities in Kenya (Vol. II) Annex H: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies 467 Figure A8.10: Coping strategies addressing food security impacts of COVID-19, Nawiri (Mercy Corps) RFSA area * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Note: all coping strategies reported by > 10% of households shown.