@article{fdi:010079088,
  title = {{I}mpact of a food voucher program in alleviating household food insecurity in two cities in {S}enegal during a food price crisis},
  author = {{S}avy, {M}athilde and {F}ortin, {S}onia and {K}ameli, {Y}ves and {R}enault, {S}. and {C}ouderc, {C}. and {G}amli, {A}. and {A}mouzou, {K}. and {P}erenze, {M}. {L}. and {M}artin-{P}r{\'e}vel, {Y}ves},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{C}ash-based transfer programs is a promising approach to alleviate household food insecurity in low-income countries, however evidence from rigorous impact evaluation in {W}est {A}frica is still scarce. {T}his study measured the impact of a food voucher distribution of the {W}orld {F}ood {P}rogram targeting vulnerable households in two cities of {S}enegal. {W}e used a quasi-experimental design and a propensity score matching to compare beneficiary and non-beneficiary households (n = 1008 in {D}akar-{P}ikine and n = 996 in {Z}iguinchor) before and after the intervention. {M}easured outcomes included the standard {H}ousehold {D}ietary {D}iversity {S}core ({HDDS}), the {H}ousehold {F}ood {I}nsecurity {A}ccess {S}cale ({HFIAS}) and the {C}oping {S}trategy {I}ndex ({CSI}). {A} difference-in-difference approach was used to measure the program impact. {I}n {D}akar-{P}ikine, the mean {HDDS} decreased between the baseline and endline, similarly in all households (p value = 0.2). {I}n {Z}iguinchor, the {HDDS} decreased between the two rounds, but significantly more in the non-beneficiary compared to the beneficiary households (-0.6 vs. -0.3 points, p value = 0.02). {A}ccording to the {HFIAS}, severe food insecurity decreased from 83.9% to 64.6% amongst beneficiaries in {Z}iguinchor, while it remained high amongst non-beneficiaries (p value = 0.0003). {A} similar protective effect was observed using the {CSI}. {I}n {D}akar-{P}ikine, the proportion of severely food insecure households did not vary between the 2 rounds in both groups (p value = 0.17). {H}ousehold's food security deteriorated between baseline and endline, because the intervention was implemented at the time of a global economic crisis. {T}he food voucher program alleviated the effect of this crisis in {Z}iguinchor, but not in {D}akar-{P}ikine.},
  keywords = {{Q}uasi-experimental evaluation ; {F}ood vouchers ; {D}ietary diversity ; {I}mpact evaluation ; {U}rban food security ; {S}enegal ; {S}ub-{S}aharan {A}frica ; {SENEGAL} ; {DAKAR} ; {PIKINE} ; {ZIGUINCHOR}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{F}ood {S}ecurity},
  volume = {12},
  numero = {2},
  pages = {465--478},
  ISSN = {1876-4517},
  year = {2020},
  DOI = {10.1007/s12571-019-00996-x},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010079088},
}