Food

Security
Indicators
PEFSA IV: Guidance Note
Zahra Nadeem Ahmed
PEFSA MEAL Team
April 16, 2013
CONTENTS
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Food Security Indicators ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP) .................................................................................. 4
Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) ...................................................................................................... 5
Food Consumption Scores (FCS) .............................................................................................................................. 10
Household Dietary Diversity Scores (HDDS) ............................................................................................................ 12
Individual Dietary Diversity Scores (IDDS) ............................................................................................................... 14

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 MAHFP Questionnaire ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2 HFIAS Questionnaire ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 3 HFIAP Categorization ........................................................................................................................................ 9
Table 4 FCS Questionnaire ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 5 FCS weights assigned to food groups .............................................................................................................. 11
Table 6 FCS Range ........................................................................................................................................................ 12
Table 7 HDDS Questionnaire ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 8 IDDS Questionnaire ......................................................................................................................................... 14


INTRODUCTION
Food security is defined by WHO as when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to
maintain a healthy and active life. This definition clearly highlights the importance not only sufficient quantity but
quality of food as well on a consistent basis. Food security analysis is segmented into three pillars, each equally
important in the debate. These comprise of food availability, that is sufficient quantities of food available on a
consistent basis, food access, that is, having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet
and food use, that is, appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care, as well as adequate water
and sanitation.
An emergency situation caused by a conflict, economic crisis or natural disaster may impact food security or
exacerbate food insecurity. This is better understood in terms of availability, access and utilization of food.
In the case of floods, as is the case with PEFSA, food security may have been impacted through various variables.
Flood waters in 2010, 2011 and 2012 destroyed cultivated and cultivable land across the region affecting
availability of food, livelihood sources and functioning local markets. Entire villages were displaces, which means
new food/value chains needed to be created to link these people with the supply. Lack of economic resources
exacerbated the situation further.
In the immediate response phase of an emergency program, food security interventions have blanket coverage to
ensure no one gets left behind. However, in the later stages of a project it is important to devise refined and
robust targeting mechanisms to ensure that are food insecure, or most vulnerable to food insecurity are targeted.
For such projects it is pertinent to analyze the effect of the project on the food security levels. WFP/USAID have
come up with several indicators to measure food insecurity. These indicators may be used for targeting purposes
to identify the most food insecure households, or they may be a part of any evaluation study to measure the
change in food security achieved in the course of a project cycle.
This glossary is especially designed for technical, monitoring and evaluation and implementation staff of the six
agencies (ACF, ACTED, CARE International, IRC, Oxfam GB and Save the Children) in the PEFSA consortium. It aims
to create a basic understanding of the indicators required to be measured in PEFSA IV along with a guide to
collecting data, tabulating the indicators and their analysis.
FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS
Since food security is a multiple dimension phenomenon, therefore various indicators have been designed to
capture its various aspects. Indicators measure caloric in-take, frequency of meals, experience of food insecurity
and all of these things over time. Data for some indicators is more technical and difficult to capture than others.
International aid agencies have made an effort to evolve these indicators to make them easier to capture.
Five food security indicators have been selected to track changes for the PEFSA interventions. Data for these are
relatively easier to collect and the indicators are easier to tabulate. These include:
1. Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP)
2. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS)
3. Food Consumption Scores (FCS)
4. Household Dietary Diversity Scores (HDDS)
5. Individual Dietary Diversity Scores (IDDS)
MONTHS OF ADEQUATE HOUSEHOLD FOOD PROVISIONING (MAHFP)
INTRODUCTION
This indicator deals with access to food. It pertains to a
households ability to produce, stock, and purchase, gather and/or
transfer food on a consistent basis. Food security usually varies
during the course of a calendar year as it is dependent on variables
subject to change, including (but not limited to) inadequate crop
production, harvesting/sowing seasons, change or loss of
livelihoods, natural disasters and conflict.
MAHFP is especially designed to capture the variation in food
security due to such factors through the course of the previous
year.
DATA COLLECTION
To tabulate this indicator, data needs to be collected through a
household survey. The recall period for this indicator is 12 months.
This survey should be targeted at the household member that is
responsible for preparation of food on a daily basis. The best time
to survey is after a period of food insecurity, so that recall is easier
for the respondents. The focus of the survey is to highlight the
months where there is greatest uncertainty.
Table 1 MAHFP Questionnaire
Please place a 1 in the box if the respondent answers YES to the following questions, and
place a 0 in the box if the response is NO
1. In the past 12 months, were there months in which you did not have enough
food to meet your familys needs?
(If the response is YES then proceed to remaining questions below)
____
2. If YES, which were the months (in the past 12 months) in which you did not
have enough food to meet your familys needs?
____
A. January ____
B. February ____
C. March ____
D. April ____
E. May ____
F. June ____
G. July ____
H. August ____
I. September ____
J. October ____
K. November ____
L. December ____
Relevance to PEFSA:
The PEFSA intervention areas comprise of rural
communities that were victim to the 2011 or
2012 floods, which makes MAHFP especially
pertinent. Monsoon rains have caused flash
floods in various parts of the province for three
years in a row, creating food insecurity each
time. These rural communities are dependent
on the agricultural sector, therefore, when
cultivated or cultivable land is destroyed they
are directly affected in terms of loss of
livelihoods and production.
Additionally these rural communities are
vulnerable to food insecurity due to their
economic condition. Lack of financial security
means that before the start of the harvesting
season, the locals are usually living on the last
of their savings from the income generated in
the previous season.
TABULATION AND ANALYSIS
Once data is collected based on the format shown, the same should be entered into a spread sheet for the ease of
calculation. MAHFP is tabulated using the formulas given below:

In order to analyze the indicator, it must be examined with reference to a target. There are two prescribed ways of
assigning a target:
1. A common way to ascertain targets is by looking at the indicator values for those with the highest income
level. Usually this will be a part of the baseline (as is the case with PEFSA IV) where
there will be some questions on income. Households can be divided into income slabs,
and the indicator for the highest income slab may be used as a target for the project.
2. Where data on household income is unavailable, the sample may be segmented based
on the indicator value. The average for the highest tercile may be used as a target for
the project.
It is important to note that these targets are usually prescribed for a food security project that spans over multiple
years (3-5 year projects). Therefore expectations and targets for a three month intervention need to be revised
accordingly.
HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY ACCESS SCALE (HFIAS)
INTRODUCTION
HFIAS also deals with access to food. It measures peoples experiences and attitudes with regards to their ability
and their own perception of their ability, to access food.
This indicator is based on the idea that the experience of food insecurity causes predictable reactions and
responses that are easy to capture and quantify on a scale that is then comparable over time or space. Qualitative
research has shown that food insecurity creates feelings of uncertainty or anxiety over food, perceptions that food
is not enough in quantity or quality, household members reduce food intake and feelings of shame over resorting
to socially unacceptable means to obtain food. These are also known as domains, defined as the most core
experiences of food insecurity that are common across countries and cultures. Based on these experiences and
attitudes, questions have been designed to capture data based on which food secure people may be differentiated
from the food insecure people.


The target for
MAHFP in the
PEFSA IV logframe
is greater than
60%
DATA COLLECTION
Data for this scale is captured through a household survey that may be part of the baseline and endline for a
project. In this manner any change through the course of the project can be measured. The recall period for data
collection is four weeks (30 days).
The sample of questions to capture this data is given below. Each question has two parts: first respondents are
asked an occurrence question, and if they answer positively, then regarding its frequency.
HFIAS measures three domains, as identified below:
1. Anxiety and uncertainty about the household food supply (Questions pertaining to this domain are highlighted
in blue in the questionnaire in Table 2)
2. Insufficient Quality (includes variety and preferences of the type of food) (Questions pertaining to this domain
are highlighted in red in the questionnaire in Table 2)
3. Insufficient food intake and its physical consequences (Questions pertaining to this domain are highlighted in
green in the questionnaire in Table 2)

Table 2 HFIAS Questionnaire
Occurrence Question (a) In the past 4 weeks, did
this occur?

NO = 0
YES = 1
(b) How often did this
happen?
1=Rarely (once or twice in
the past 4 weeks)
2=Sometimes (3-10 times
in the past 4 weeks)
3=Often (more than 10
times in the past 4 weeks)
1. In the past 4 weeks, did you worry that
your household would not have enough
food?
____ ____
2. In the past 4 weeks, were you or any
household member not able to eat the
kinds of foods you preferred because of a
lack of resources?
____ ____
3. In the past 4 weeks, did you or any
household member have to eat a limited
variety of foods due to a lack of resources?
____ ____
4. In the past 4 weeks, did you or any
household member have to eat some foods
that you really did not want to eat because
of lack of resources to obtain other types of
food?
____ ____
5. In the past 4 weeks, did you or any
household member have to eat a smaller
meal than you felt you needed because
there was not enough food?
____ ____
6. In the past 4 weeks, did you or any
household member have to eat fewer
meals in a day because there was not
enough food?
____ ____
7. In the past 4 weeks, was there ever no food
to eat of any kind in your household
because of lack of resources to get food?
____ ____
8. In the past 4 weeks, did you or any
household member go to sleep at night
hungry because there was not enough
food?
____ ____
9. In the past 4 weeks, did you or any
household member go a whole day and
night without eating anything because
there was not enough food?
____ ____
For ease of calculation, if the answer to part (a) is no and a zero has been recorded, the code recorded in part (b)
of the corresponding question should also be zero.
The questions given above are a standard format aimed to serve as a guide. It is important to understand these
questions and what they are asking so that they may be adapted to local languages and cultures. Some of these
questions deal with perceptions and others with behavioral changes and target all household members, they do
not distinguish between adults and children.
TABULATION AND ANALYSIS
There are four types of indicators that may be calculated based on this information. They include:
1. Household Food Insecurity Access-related Conditions
These indicators measure the percentage of households experiencing a certain condition, at any level of
severity. They provide specific and disaggregated information about the behaviors and perceptions of the
surveyed households.

The following formulae are examples based on Q7 from the form above that enquires about the households
that ran out of food.

2. Household Food Insecurity Access-related Domains
Three domains are reflected in HFIAS, which include, anxiety and uncertainty, insufficient quality, insufficient
food intake and its physical consequences. These indicators present summary information on the prevalence
of households experiencing one or more of these domains.
The following formula is based on an example that has to do with insufficient food quality.

3. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale Score
The HFIAS score is a continuous measure of the degree of food insecurity (access) in the household in the
previous month. The score is a sum of frequency-of-occurrence part (b) of each question. The maximum score
a household can have is 27 and the minimum score is 0. Increasing scores represent increasing food insecurity
experienced by household.









4. Household Food Insecurity Access Prevalence (HFIAP)
HFIAP is the final categorical indicator that measures and reports the prevalence of food insecurity and may
also be used to make decisions regarding geographical targeting. It should be reported in addition to the HFIAS
score.
The HFIAP indicator categorizes households into four levels of household insecurity (access) that comprise of
food secure, mildly food insecure, moderately food insecure and severely food insecure. Households are
categorized as increasingly food insecure as they respond affirmatively to the more severe conditions and
experiences more frequently. The table below illustrates this categorization:
Table 3 HFIAP Categorization
Question Frequency
Rarely (1) Sometimes (2) Often (3)
1 (b) HFIA Categories:
2 (b) 1: Food Secure
3 (b) 2: Mildly Food Insecure
4 (b) 3: Moderately Food Insecure
5 (b) 4: Severely Food Insecure
6 (b)
7 (b)
8 (b)
9 (b)

For ease of understanding, tabulating HFIAP has been broken up into a two step process:
First, HFIA category variable is calculated for each household by assigning a code for the food insecurity (access)
category in which it falls. Households are classified into four food security categories (1: food secure, 2: mildly food
insecure, 3: moderately food insecure and 4: severely food insecure) that should be calculated in order of severity
using the formulae listed below:

HFIA Category = 1 if [(Q1b=0 or Q1b=1) and Q2=0 and Q3=0 and Q4=0 and Q5=0 and Q6=0 and Q7=0 and Q8=0
and Q9=0]

HFIA Category = 2 if [(Q1b=2 or Q1b=3 or Q2b=1 or Q2b=2 or Q2b=3 or Q3b=1 or Q4b=1) and Q5=0 and Q6=0 and
Q7=0 and Q8=0 and Q9=0]

HFIA Category = 3 if [(Q3b=2 or Q3b=3 or Q4b=2 or Q4b=3 or Q5b=1 or Q5b=2 or Q6b=1 or Q6b=2) and Q7=0 and
Q8=0 and Q9=0]

HFIA Category = 4 if [Q5b=3 or Q6b=2 or Q7b=1 or Q7b=2 or Q7b=3 or Q8b=1 or Q8b=2 or Q8b=3 or Q9b=1 or
Q9b=2 or Q9b=3]

Next, the prevalence of different levels of household food insecurity is calculated for each
HFIA category using the formula below (The formula is based on the example where
percentage of households that fall into category 4 is tabulated):







FOOD CONSUMPTION SCORES (FCS)
INTRODUCTION
Food Consumption Scores (FCS) measure the utilization component of the
food security phenomena. Generally, measure of kilocalories of food intake
is considered the gold standard for the measure of food consumption.
However, this requires technical experience and knowledge and data
collection is a tedious process. To overcome this problem, proxies have
been developed to measure consumption that are easier to tabulate.
FCS is one such indicator that relies on dietary diversity and frequency of
intake and has a seven day recall period. This uses more standardized
methodologies and tools and enables comparative analysis across different
data sets.
This indicator attributes different weights to predefined food groups in
order to calculate the FCS score. These scores are classified into universal
ranges of Poor, Borderline and Acceptable that reflect the state of the
individuals food consumption.
DATA COLLECTION
Data may be captured at any point during a project life cycle to measure the prevailing state of food consumption
or utilization. If this is measure before and after a project, through baselines and endlines, it will be easy to track
the changes a particular project has had on food security.
This data is collected through a household survey where the respondent is asked regarding their food consumption
for the past week (7 days). It is advised that the person in charge of managing food within the household should be
targeted for this survey.
A sample for the questionnaire is given below. The respondent is asked how many days each food group was
consumed.
Relevance to PEFSA:
FCS is a core indicator of consumption and
recommended by VAM. Since PEFSA is an
emergency project it is very difficult to
conduct detailed kilocalorie intake
analyses, therefore FCS is a useful for tool
to use to track any change in consumption
for PEFSA beneficiaries.
It has been used in PEFSA II and III as well
to measure food security for PEFSA
beneficiaries.
The target for
HFIAP in the
PEFSA IV
logframe is
greater than
60%
Table 4 FCS Questionnaire
TABULATION
FCS is tabulated based on pre-assigned weights attributed to each food group. This is a weakness in this system as
the justification for these weights is inherently subjective. Weights are given in the table below.
Table 5 FCS weights assigned to food groups
FCS is calculated by multiplying the responses received (A-H) by their respective weights. The formula used to
calculate the FCS score is given below:


Focus on food eaten INSIDE the house

For how many days was that particular
food eaten in the past week (Choose one
Option of the following:)

0 = Not eaten 1= 1 day
2= 2 days 3= 3 days
4= 4 days 5= 5 days
6= 6 days 7= 7 days
1. Cereals and tubers (maize, maize porridge, rice, sorghum,
millet, bread and other cereals, cassava, potatoes and
sweet potatoes)
__A__
2. Pulses (Dal, beans, lentils, peas, nuts) __B__
3. Vegetables and leaves __C__
4. Fruits __D__
5. Meat, poultry, fish, eggs __E__
6. Milk, cheese, yogurt __F__
7. Sugar, honey __G__
8. Oil, ghee, butter __H__
Food Group Food Items Weight
Main Staples
(Cereals and
Tubers)
Maize, maize porridge, rice, sorghum, millet pasta, bread and other cereals 2
Cassava, potatoes and sweet potatoes, other tubers, plantains
Pulses Beans, peas, groundnuts and cashew nuts 3
Vegetables Vegetables, leaves 1
Fruit Fruits 1
Meat and Fish Beef, goat, poultry, eggs, and fish 4
Milk Milk, yogurt and other dairy 4
Sugar Sugar and sugar products, honey 0.5
Oil Oils, fats and butter 0.5
Condiments Spices, tea, coffee, salt, small amounts of milk for tea 0

In this manner the FCS score is tabulated for each household. These scores are then classified into a range based
on the table below:
Table 6 FCS Range
FCS Scores FCS Range
Less than 28 Poor
28 to 42 Borderline
Greater than 42 Acceptable
Please note that usually the cut off scores used for these ranges are 21 and 35.
However, in regions where consumption of sugar and oil is high, the cut off scores
measured in the table above are used.
The FCS score can be analyzed itself, as the range is indicative of the food consumption
scenario. To track changes in a project, the scores of the same beneficiaries may be compared from the start and
end of the project. To further enrich the analysis, the FCS can be compared to other socio-economic variables that
are seen to affect FCS in any way such as income, debt, or different modalities of a project, such as male versus
female beneficiaries and so on.


HOUSEHOLD DIETARY DI VERSITY SCORES (HDDS)
INTRODUCTION
Dietary Diversity Scores are a proxy for food consumption, or utilization and access. They focus on a diversified
diet, which is assumed to be nutritionally high in value. Household dietary diversity is essentially the number of
different food groups consumed over a reference period. It is important as a more diversified diet is an important
outcome in and of itself, such a diet is then associated with other positive outcomes pertaining to health and it is
correlated with calorie and protein intake.
Data for this indicator is also easy to collect and tabulate, hence it is convenient for short term and emergency
programming.
DATA COLLECTION
Data collected at the household level for HDDS where the preferred respondent is the person managing food
within the household. The recall period for HDDS is the last day (previous 24 hours).
Twelve predefined food groups are used for HDDS. Respondents are asked if they have consumed each of the
following food groups in the previous twenty four hours. These food groups are as follows:

The target for
FCS in the PEFSA
IV logframe is
greater than
60%
A. Cereals B. Roots and Tubers C. Vegetables
D. Fruits E. Meat and Poultry F. Eggs
G. Fish and Seafood H. Pulses/Legumes/Nuts I. Milk and Milk Products
J. Oil/Fats K. Sugar/Honey L. Miscellaneous

As a rule, only those food groups should be included that were prepared within the household, for consumption
within or outside the household. This is because this indicator is used to reflect the household dietary diversity
score.
A sample of a questionnaire for HDDS is shown below:
Table 7 HDDS Questionnaire
Ask about the types of foods that the respondent or anyone
else in the household consumed in the last 24 hours
Please place a 1 in the box if the respondent
answers YES to the following questions, and
place a 0 in the box if the response is NO
A. Cereals ____
B. Roots and Tubers ____
C. Vegetables ____
D. Fruits ____
E. Meat and Poultry ____
F. Eggs ____
G. Fish and Seafood ____
H. Pulses/Legumes/Nuts ____
I. Milk and Milk Products ____
J. Oil/Fats ____
K. Sugar/Honey ____
L. Miscellaneous ____


TABULATION
Tabulation of HDDS is fairly simple. The score is calculated as a sum of the responses received.

In this manner, HDDS scores may be calculated for each household, and an average score may be calculated for
any strata of the sample.
If HDDS is tabulated at the beginning and end of a project, scores may be compared to analyze the changes.
However, there is no universally accepted ideal HDDS to set as a goal In order to analyze HDDS a target range is
required. A few alternatives are possible.
The first is based on the assumption that economic empowerment would lead to
improved food consumption, or higher income levels would result in higher dietary
diversity scores. Following from this, the HDDS of the wealthiest households may be
used as a target for the remaining population. For instance, the average HDDS
calculated for the highest 33% in the baseline can be used as the target HDDS for
the project.
If baseline data is unavailable, data may be segmented based on HDDS ranges. The average HDDS for the section
with the highest HDDS may be used as a target for analysis.
INDIVIDUAL DIETARY DIVERSITY SCORES (IDDS)
INTRODUCTION
IDDS is a variation of HDDS and it focuses primarily on children in a household. IDDS reflects the nutritional quality
of an individuals diet.
DATA COLLECTION
With respect to its specific objective, the food groups for IDDS are different from HDDS. The eight food groups
included are:
A. Grains, Roots or Tubers B. Vitamin A-rich plant foods
C. Other Fruits or Vegetables D. Meat, Poultry, Fish and Seafood
E. Eggs F. Pulses/Legumes/Nuts
G. Milk and Milk Products H. Foods cooked in Oil or Fat

The recall period for IDDS is the same as that for HDDS, the last day and night (previous 24 hours). The person in
charge of the childs food intake should be asked be these questions. The questionnaire below may be used as a
sample to collect the data:
Table 8 IDDS Questionnaire
Ask about the types of foods that the child in the
household consumed in the last 24 hours
Please place a 1 in the box if the respondent answers
YES to the following questions, and place a 0 in the
box if the response is NO
Grains, Roots or Tubers ____
Vitamin A-rich plant foods ____
Other Fruits or Vegetables ____
Meat, Poultry, Fish and Seafood ____
Eggs ____
Pulses/Legumes/Nuts ____
Milk and Milk Products ____
Foods cooked in Oil or Fat ____
The target for
HDDS in the PEFSA
IV logframe is
greater than 60%
In a questionnaire where there are questions on both HDDS and IDDS, the enumerator must be well trained to ask
about the food groups for the whole household and than in greater detail for certain individuals, and should be
able to differentiate between the two.
TABULATION
Tabulation and analysis of IDDS is similar to HDDS. Formulae to calculate IDDS are as
follows:

Analysis of these scores will be conducted on the same pattern as HDDS.
The target for IDDS in
the PEFSA IV logframe
is greater than 60%