Household Food Insecurity Access Scale

Outcome

Impact

average Household Food Insecurity Access Scale score

The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) measures the severity of households’ experiences of food insecurity related to access to food during the previous four weeks (30 days). It captures respondents’ concerns about food availability and experiences such as eating less preferred foods, reducing meals or going hungry because of a lack of resources. It does not measure the nutritional adequacy of diets or differences in food access between individual household members.

Determine the indicator's value by using the methodology described in detail in FANTA’s very practical and easy-to-use Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) Indicator 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, or another adult who knows the household’s food situation. Ask:

• nine “occurrence” questions representing a generally increasing level of severity of food insecurity

• nine “frequency-of-occurrence” questions, asked only when the corresponding occurrence question is answered “yes”, to determine whether the situation occurred rarely, sometimes or often

These questions, alongside all details on their use, are described in the HFIAS Guide. Use the standard recall period of four weeks (30 days) for all nine questions. Before conducting the survey, adapt and pre-test the questionnaire to ensure that locally relevant terms, such as “household” and “lack of resources”, are understood correctly. Keep the original meaning of the questions and use the same wording and response categories across survey rounds.

Ask the questions privately where feasible, as some experiences of hunger may be sensitive. Explain that respondents may decline to answer any question, and avoid pressuring them to disclose difficult experiences.

 

2) For each household, calculate the HFIAS score by adding the numeric codes assigned to the nine frequency-of-occurrence questions (one for each occurrence question). Assign the codes as follows:

• If the household answered “no” to an occurrence question, assign 0 to the corresponding frequency question.

• If the household answered “yes”, assign a code based on how often the situation occurred during the past four weeks (30 days): rarely = 1 (once or twice), sometimes = 2 (3–10 times), or often = 3 (more than 10 times).

Add the nine codes to obtain the household’s total HFIAS score, ranging from 0 to 27. A score of 0 means the household did not experience any of the nine situations, while 27 means it experienced all nine often. Higher scores indicate more severe food insecurity.

Do not treat missing or unknown answers as zero. If any required answer is missing, do not calculate an HFIAS score for that household.

For further guidance, see page 17 of the HFIAS Guide (see below).

 

3) To determine the indicator’s value, add the HFIAS scores of all households with valid scores and divide the result by the number of these households. Exclude households with missing or unknown answers that prevent calculation of a valid HFIAS score.

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

1) Take maximum advantage of all the guidance provided by FANTA’s Household Food Insecurity Access Scale Indicator Guide.

 

2) Measuring the average HFIAS Score is just one out of four ways in which the HFIAS data can be used. It is primarily recommended because it is most sensitive to capturing smaller increments of change over time. The three additional ways include using HFIAS data for measuring:

  - the prevalence of different levels of food insecurity in a given geographical area (i.e. % of households that are food secure/ mildly food insecure / moderately food insecure / and severely food insecure)

  - the prevalence of households experiencing one or more of three overall aspects of food insecurity (anxiety and uncertainty, insufficient quality, insufficient food intake)

  - proportion of households experiencing a specific situation of food insecurity (one of the nine situations assessed by the surveys)

The average HFIAS score does not show what proportion of households are food insecure. If you want to report the percentage of households that are food secure, mildly, moderately or severely food insecure, use the Household Food Insecurity Access Prevalence (HFIAP) classification described in section 5.4 of the HFIAS Guide. These categories are based on the pattern and frequency of households’ responses, not on numerical cut-offs applied to the 0–27 HFIAS score. Where useful, report the category percentages alongside the average score.

 

3) The HFIAS gives a detailed view of how households experience food insecurity, from worry about food to going hungry. It is particularly useful for monitoring changes within the same context, including in livelihood programmes, when it is important to capture both milder and more severe food-access difficulties. The shorter Household Hunger Scale (HHS) indicator may be preferable when the main interest is severe hunger or comparison across different cultural settings. However, unlike HFIAS, it does not capture milder food-access difficulties.

Unlike HHS, HFIAS has not been validated for direct comparison across different cultural settings. It is therefore best used to monitor changes within the same context, using consistently adapted questions. Avoid directly comparing HFIAS scores or severity categories across culturally different populations without appropriate validation.

4) Avoid picking and choosing only some of the nine questions – the complete set of questions does a better job of distinguishing the household food insecurity level than any question on its own.

 

5) The data required for this indicator is prone to seasonal variations. For comparable baseline and endline results, collect HFIAS data at the same time of year where feasible. When interpreting changes, also consider food prices, major shocks and the timing of food or cash assistance. A change in HFIAS scores alone does not demonstrate that the programme caused the improvement or deterioration.

It is recommended to collect the data during or directly after the worst of the ‘lean season’, because the greatest number of households are likely to be affected by food insecurity at this time. However, if you intend to use HFIAS to identify areas with the greatest number of chronically food-insecure households, the lean season may not be the best time to collect data. During this period, it can be difficult to distinguish households that experience food insecurity for much of the year from those affected only during the lean season. Consider collecting data at another time of year.

6) HFIAS is useful for monitoring food insecurity across population groups and geographical areas, including for geographical targeting. However, HFIAS results should not be used as direct criteria for selecting individual households for assistance, as respondents may adjust their answers if they believe the results will affect their eligibility. Instead, household selection should use context-specific, transparent and verifiable vulnerability criteria, informed by community consultation and other relevant evidence.

Also consider using the following indicators:

• Household Hunger Scale (measures more severe food deprivation and supports comparisons across different cultural settings)

• Food Consumption Score (provides complementary information on food consumption frequency and dietary diversity)

• Reduced Coping Strategy Index (measures short-term food-related coping behaviours resulting from limited access to food)

• Livelihood Coping Strategies – Food Security (assesses whether households are using livelihood strategies that may undermine their future food security)