4. Livelihood Coping Strategies for Food Security

4. Livelihood Coping Strategies for Food Security (LCS-FS)

VERSION

V5.0 - 2026.03 — Existing

INDICATOR CODE

4

TECHNICAL OWNER

Assessments and Targeting Unit (PRG-FA)

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Outcome Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Mandatory

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific

APPLICABILITY

The selection of this indicator is mandatory against the following sub-activities in CSPs logframes for interventions with food assistance, except for when the modality is multipurpose cash*. Selection of the below sub-activities will trigger the mandatory selection of this indicator:

1. General Distribution (GD);

2. Food assistance for assets (FFA);

3. Food assistance for training (FFT)

The selection of this indicator is also recommended against the following sub-activities in CSPs logframes. Selection of the below sub-activities will NOT trigger the mandatory selection of this indicator:

1. Prevention of micronutrient deficiencies (PMD)

2. Prevention of stunting (STUN)

3. Prevention of acute malnutrition (PREV)

4. HIV Care and Treatment (HIV/TB_C&T)

5. School Meals Programme Take Home Incentives (SF_THI)

6. Forecast-based anticipatory action (FBA)

7. Macro-Insurance (MAI)

8. Micro/meso Insurance (MMI)

9. Other climate adaptation and risk management activities (CAR)

10. Smallholder Agricultural Market Support (SMS)

11. Climate Adapted Assets and Agricultural Practices (CAP)

*N.B. For interventions using multipurpose cash, indicator 5. LCS-EN is more applicable.

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

• Percentage of households not applying coping strategies

• Percentage of households applying stress coping strategies due to lack of food

• Percentage of households applying crisis coping strategies due to lack of food

• Percentage of households applying emergency strategies due to lack of food

DEFINITION

This indicator aims to measure the proportion of households who are (not) applying the different livelihood coping strategies using a thirty-day recall tool.

RATIONALE

The collection of data on livelihood coping is especially useful when there is a good understanding of the strategies typically employed by households in difficult situations and the relative severity of the strategies when compared to each other. LCS is also a powerful indicator to assess hardship and deprivations faced by households during new emergencies and protracted crises. Responses are used to understand mechanisms used by households to cope with internal and external shocks.

While the complementary food security indicators (e.g., FCS and rCSI) are proxy indicators that measure the adequacy of households’ food consumption at the time of the survey, the LCS-FS helps in assessing households’ coping capacity and productive capacities in the longer-term, as well as the future impact on access to food for households. For instance, the sale of productive assets is likely to affect the sustainability of a household’s livelihoods and may therefore translate into reduced physical and/or economic access to food in the medium- to long-term.

Households relying on livelihood coping strategies due to a lack of food are classified based on the severity associated with the strategies applied. The higher the category, the more severe and longer-term the negative consequences are for households. The application of stress strategies indicates a decrease in the households’ capacity to manage future shocks, while crisis and emergency mechanisms reduce the future household productivity with an increasing intensity passing from the former (i.e., crisis) to the latter (i.e., emergency).

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

The list of possible livelihood coping strategies can also be selected through from the WFP Survey Designer by choosing the sub-module Livelihood Coping Strategies (LCS-FS) or Livelihood Coping Strategies (LCS-FS Rural) in the module Coping Strategies. Please see examples of LCS-FS modules in the word file version and additional information on the VAM Resource Centre.

Example of LCS-FS module

It is the responsibility of the technical focal point to apply the joint Monitoring and VAM Data Quality Guidance principles when collecting this indicator. If in doubt, please contact PRG-FA at global.assessmentandtargeting@wfp.org.

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

Sample size: The recommended sample size is 270 per stratum per round of data collection, with consideration given to the parameters below:

• Population size (beneficiaries per stratum): at least 20,000¹

• Desired level of confidence: 90%

• Acceptable margin of error: 5%

• Response distribution: 50%

• Simple random sample (design effect): 1

If cluster sample is employed, sample size should increase by at least 50% (at least 405 households).

If the prevalence is lower or higher than 50%, or the beneficiaries per stratum less than 20,000 then sample size could be lower than 270, use the sample size tool for calculation.

Mandatory stratification:

• Programme activity

• Transfer modality

Optional stratification:

• Beneficiaries/non-beneficiaries (when relevant)

Guidance on sampling is available here.

Sample size tool: Raosoft sample size calculator

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

This indicator is calculated by using the following steps:

1. Build a dichotomous variable for each coping severity level, representing if a household adopted or exhausted any strategy with that level of severity.

   Three dichotomous variables need to be created:

   • stress_coping ​

   • crisis_coping ​

   • emergency_coping

2. Then, a categorical variable is built, representing the severity level of the most severe strategy that a household adopted or exhausted. The categorical variable ranges from 1 to 4 and reflect one of four groups in which households are allocated:​ ​

   • no use of stress, crisis, or emergency strategies​

   • use of stress strategies​

   • use of crisis strategies​

   • use of emergency strategies​

3. Sum the total number of HHs in each of the categorical values and express as a percentage (out of 100%).

% HHs not applying coping strategies =

% HHs applying stress coping strategies=

% HHs applying crisis coping strategies=

% HHs applying emergency coping strategies=

Standard scripts are available on GitHub.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Values are recorded in the logframe. Each value has a reporting combination which is created based on:

• Sub-activity

• Location

• Beneficiary Group

Follow-up value is reported as one number (representing a percentage) for each category of the following:

• Percentage of households not applying coping strategies

• Percentage of households applying stress coping strategies due to lack of food

• Percentage of households applying crisis coping strategies due to lack of food

• Percentage of households applying emergency strategies due to lack of food

Recommended disaggregation (when sample size allows):

• Sex of household head

• Transfer modality

• Rural/urban

• Admin and livelihood zone

• Displacement status

BASELINE

Baselines are set only once, at one of the following points:

1. At the beginning of the CSP, or

2. When the indicator is selected for reporting after the commencement of the CSP, or

3. When there is a change in target, location and/or modality that triggers a new reporting combination (target, location and modality) for an existing indicator.

Baseline values should be established within three months before and no later than three months from the start date of activity implementation. However, it is strongly recommended to collect baseline values within one month before the start of the activity implementation. The baseline could also be determined from a relevant WFP assessment conducted within the three months prior to the start of programme activity.

For the sake of comparability, baselines, follow-ups and end-line surveys must be conducted using the same sampling frames and disaggregation/stratification criteria.

Setting a solid baseline is a key factor in measuring the impact of the programme. Additionally, when designed accordingly, it can enable factor analysis which can be used to measure the impact of potential future funding cuts. Get more information about this here.

TARGET SETTING

Annual targets:

Reduced proportion of households applying crisis and emergency strategies compared to pre-assistance baseline value or previous yearly follow-up in case of multiannual projects.

AND

Reduced proportion of households applying emergency strategies compared to the pre-assistance baseline value, or previous yearly follow-up in case of multiannual projects.

End of CSP target:

Reduced proportion of households applying crisis and emergency strategies compared to the pre-assistance baseline value, or previous yearly follow-up in case of multiannual projects.

AND

Reduced proportion of households applying emergency strategies compared to pre-assistance baseline value, or previous yearly follow-up in case of multinational projects.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Minimum: twice/year

For years when a baseline is conducted, only one follow up is required.

INTERPRETATION

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

Women-headed households are to a higher extent relying on stress coping strategies than those headed by males. This may be explained by the limited work opportunities for women.“

It is recommended to include reporting on the most commonly used coping strategies.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

The following indicators may be reported along with this indicator:

Household level indicators:

• 1. Food Consumption Score (FCS)

• 2. Food Consumption Score-Nutrition (FCS-N)

• 3. Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI)

• 6. Economic Capacity to Meet Essential Needs (ECMEN)

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Focus group discussions can be conducted to inform the design of the LCS-FS questionnaire module by providing information for selecting appropriate strategies and for better understanding the relevance of the module to the local population. A list of coping behaviours can be established through focus group interviews with members of the local community only when the strategies provided in the available master list do not suffice or when the phrasing of the strategies needs to be slightly re-phrased for the context.

Questions that can be asked during a focus group discussion may include:

• How do households in your community cope with this specific shock (e.g., flood, drought, economic crisis, etc.)?

• How do households in your community cope to increase household resources to access food?

• How do households cope to reduce the demand for food needs?

• How do households cope to distribute food resources within the household?

For more information, please see theLCS-FS technical guidance note and the LCS-FS Qualitative Tool on the VAM Resource Centre.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

The provision of assistance to targeted households may result in positive effects over time, without the presence of external shocks. The reduction of reliance on livelihood coping strategies may be observed when comparing the results of LCS-FS with the baseline or previous rounds. These effects may not be immediate, as not all livelihood strategies can be easily reversed by households. If no change is observed over time, some consideration may be needed to adjust the design of an intervention. For example, results can be used to inform beneficiary targeting and prioritization and the selection of transfer modalities. The recommendations can be applied in a wide array of responses and can be particularly helpful in multi-partner interventions.

VISUALIZATION

Use colours as recommended in the Data Visualization Guidance.

LIMITATIONS

Type of strategies implemented are largely context and livelihood-dependent, therefore comparisons between regions and countries can be limited. Furthermore, the ability to draw the line and differentiate between households applying strategies due to lack of food and local customs and traditions can be challenging.

In protracted emergencies with an extreme degree of asset depletion, it can be difficult to continue to measure additional asset depletion using the LCS strategies. Furthermore, in come contexts identifying be best suitable copings strategies for e.g. urban and displaced populations can be difficult. In these cases, the LCS technical guidance suggests developing context-specific strategies to avoid the risk of underreporting the severity. In this case, please reach out to PRG-FA at global.assessmentandtargeting@wfp.org.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Refer to the LCS-FS page on the VAM Resource Centre or contact PRG-FA at global.assessmentandtargeting@wfp.org.