Household Hunger Scale

Outcome

Impact

median Household Hunger Scale score among targeted households

The Household Hunger Scale (HHS), developed by FANTA, measures the severity of household hunger by capturing concrete experiences of severe food deprivation over the previous 30 days. Using standardised questions drawn from the HFIAS, it produces a household hunger score (0–6) that can also be used to estimate the prevalence of little/no hunger, moderate hunger and severe hunger. Developed for cross-cultural comparison, HHS focuses on the quantity dimension of food access (not dietary quality) and is most useful in areas with substantial food insecurity.

Determine the indicator's value by using the methodology described in detail in FANTA’s very practical and easy-to-use Household Hunger Scale Guide. The main steps involve:

 

1) Conduct interviews with a representative sample of target households. In each household, interview the person most involved in food preparation and meals, as they are generally best placed to describe household food consumption. Ask the respondent:

• three “occurrence” questions representing an increasing severity of food insecurity

• three “frequency-of-occurrence” questions that are asked as a follow-up to each occurrence question to determine how often the situation occurred (rarely, sometimes, often)

These questions, alongside all details on their use, are described in the HHS Guide. Ask each frequency-of-occurrence question only if the respondent answers "yes" to the corresponding occurrence question. Use the standard recall period of four weeks or 30 days, whichever is better understood locally. Keep it consistent across survey rounds. Do not substitute a shorter or longer period.

 

2) Calculate each household's HHS score by first recoding the responses to the three questions as follows:

• 0 = The event did not occur.

• 1 = The event occurred rarely (1–2 times) or sometimes (3–10 times).

• 2 = The event occurred often (more than 10 times).

Add the three recoded values to obtain the household's HHS score, ranging from 0 to 6. If any required answer is missing, treat the household's HHS score as missing rather than assigning a zero.

 

3) To determine the indicator’s value, calculate the median (not the mean) value of the individual households’ scores. To calculate the median:

• Order the individual HHS scores from lowest to highest.

• Find the score that falls in the middle of all the household scores when they are arranged from lowest to highest. This is the median value that represents the household hunger status for the target population. If there is an even number of household scores, calculate the median by averaging the two middle values. The median describes the middle of the score distribution but does not indicate how many households experience moderate or severe hunger.

This data can be disaggregated by geographical area and gender of the household head, and, if relevant and feasible, also by displacement status, wealth group, and household composition (including households with children, older people or members with disabilities). Ensure that subgroup sample sizes are sufficient for meaningful comparison.

1) Take maximum advantage of all the guidance provided by FANTA’s Household Hunger Scale Guide.

 

2) HHS results can be reported as a median score (0–6) or as the percentage of households in three categories: little/no hunger (0–1), moderate hunger (2–3) and severe hunger (4–6). Both approaches are valid. The median is useful for tracking changes over time but can hide severe hunger affecting a minority of households. Category percentages are easier to interpret and are widely used by humanitarian actors, such as WFP. Choose the format that best suits your reporting needs or report both where useful.

3) The median is recommended because HHS scores are generally skewed, making it a more suitable measure of central tendency than the mean / average.

4) HHS is most useful in areas with substantial food insecurity because it focuses on severe food deprivation. The HFIAS indicator covers a wider range of food-access difficulties, including milder insecurity. However, unlike HHS, HFIAS scores have not been validated for direct comparison across different cultural settings.

 

5) HHS measures severe household food deprivation but does not assess dietary quality, micronutrient adequacy or which household members experience hunger. Depending on your programme's objectives and target population, consider complementing HHS with indicators measuring food consumption, dietary diversity or food-related coping strategies (see Relevant Sectoral Indicators below).

 

6) HHS results can vary with seasonal changes in food access, shocks and recent assistance. For year-on-year comparisons, collect data at the same time of year where feasible. For shorter programmes, record the season, recent shocks and timing of food or cash assistance, and consider these factors when interpreting changes.

 

7) Do not pick and choose HHS questions for inclusion or exclusion from the questionnaire, because it is the set of HHS questions together - not the use of each HHS question independently - that has been validated as a meaningful measure of household food deprivation.

 

8) Because the HHS questions cover more sensitive topics, it is recommended that they are asked at the end of the relevant portion of the questionnaire. Ask the questions privately where feasible, explain that respondents may decline to answer, and avoid pressuring them to disclose difficult experiences.

9) Food security outcome indicators, including this one, are useful for assessing and monitoring food insecurity across populations, comparing groups and supporting geographic targeting. However, they should not be used as direct criteria for selecting individual households for food assistance. Results can be influenced by recall errors, temporary circumstances, seasonal and cultural practices, and how respondents understand or answer questions. They can also be difficult to verify and explain transparently to communities. Instead, household selection should use context-specific, transparent and verifiable vulnerability criteria, informed by community consultation and other relevant evidence.

 

10) HHS was developed and validated for cross-cultural comparison. However, meaningful comparisons require the standard questions, recall period and scoring to be retained, with translations carefully adapted and tested to preserve their meaning. Survey sampling, seasonality and other contextual differences must also be considered when comparing results.

Also consider using the following indicators:

• Food Consumption Score (complements HHS by assessing the frequency and diversity of household food consumption)

• Reduced Coping Strategy Index (measures food-related coping behaviours that can indicate food-access stress before severe hunger occurs)

• Minimum Dietary Diversity - Women (assesses dietary diversity among women aged 15–49 years as a population-level proxy for micronutrient adequacy)

• Minimum Dietary Diversity - Children (assesses dietary diversity among children aged 6–23 months, which HHS does not capture)

• Individual Dietary Diversity Score (provides a flexible measure of dietary diversity for other specified population groups)

Also consider using the following indicator:

• Assistance Delivery (assesses whether humanitarian food or cash assistance is provided safely, accessibly and accountably, helping identify barriers that may prevent households from receiving support)