In 2023, the around 11.1 percent of the population was living below the national poverty line in the United States. Poverty in the United StatesAs shown in the statistic above, the poverty rate among all people living in the United States has shifted within the last 15 years. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines poverty as follows: “Absolute poverty measures poverty in relation to the amount of money necessary to meet basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. The concept of absolute poverty is not concerned with broader quality of life issues or with the overall level of inequality in society.” The poverty rate in the United States varies widely across different ethnic groups. American Indians and Alaska Natives are the ethnic group with the most people living in poverty in 2022, with about 25 percent of the population earning an income below the poverty line. In comparison to that, only 8.6 percent of the White (non-Hispanic) population and the Asian population were living below the poverty line in 2022. Children are one of the most poverty endangered population groups in the U.S. between 1990 and 2022. Child poverty peaked in 1993 with 22.7 percent of children living in poverty in that year in the United States. Between 2000 and 2010, the child poverty rate in the United States was increasing every year; however,this rate was down to 15 percent in 2022. The number of people living in poverty in the U.S. varies from state to state. Compared to California, where about 4.44 million people were living in poverty in 2022, the state of Minnesota had about 429,000 people living in poverty.

Series Name: Proportion of population below international poverty line (percent)Series Code: SI_POV_DAY1Release Version: 2020.Q2.G.03This dataset is the part of the Global SDG Indicator Database compiled through the UN System in preparation for the Secretary-General's annual report on Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.Indicator 1.1.1: Proportion of the population living below the international poverty line by sex, age, employment status and geographic location (urban/rural)Target 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a dayGoal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhereFor more information on the compilation methodology of this dataset, see https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/

Series Name: Employed population below international poverty line by sex and age (percent)Series Code: SI_POV_EMP1Release Version: 2020.Q2.G.03This dataset is the part of the Global SDG Indicator Database compiled through the UN System in preparation for the Secretary-General's annual report on Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.Indicator 1.1.1: Proportion of the population living below the international poverty line by sex, age, employment status and geographic location (urban/rural)Target 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a dayGoal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhereFor more information on the compilation methodology of this dataset, see https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/

Out of all OECD countries, Cost Rica had the highest poverty rate as of 2022, at over 20 percent. The country with the second highest poverty rate was the United States, with 18 percent. On the other end of the scale, Czechia had the lowest poverty rate at 6.4 percent, followed by Denmark.

The significance of the OECD

The OECD, or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, was founded in 1948 and is made up of 38 member countries. It seeks to improve the economic and social well-being of countries and their populations. The OECD looks at issues that impact people’s everyday lives and proposes policies that can help to improve the quality of life.

Poverty in the United States

In 2022, there were nearly 38 million people living below the poverty line in the U.S.. About one fourth of the Native American population lived in poverty in 2022, the most out of any ethnicity. In addition, the rate was higher among young women than young men. It is clear that poverty in the United States is a complex, multi-faceted issue that affects millions of people and is even more complex to solve.

The most common poverty measures, including that used by the OECD, focus on income based approaches. One of the most common measures of income poverty is the proportion of households with income less than half median equivalised disposable household income (which is set as the poverty line); this is a relative income poverty measure as poverty is measured by reference to the income of others rather than in some absolute sense. Australia has one of the highest household disposable incomes in the world, which means that an Australian relative income poverty line is set at a high level of income compared to most other countries.

OECD statistics on Australian poverty 2015-16 (based on ABS Survey of Income and Housing data and applying a poverty line of 50% of median income) determined the Australian poverty rate was over 25% before taxes and transfers, but falls around 12% after taxes and transfers. Though measuring poverty through application of solely an income measure is not considered comprehensive for an Australian context, however, it does demonstrate that the Australian welfare system more than halves the number of Australians that would otherwise be considered as at risk of living in poverty under that measure.
It is important to consider a range of indicators of persistent disadvantage to understand poverty and hardship and its multidimensional nature. Different indicators point to different dimensions of poverty. While transient poverty is a problem, the experience of persistent poverty is of deeper concern, particularly where families experience intergenerational disadvantage and long-term welfare reliance. HILDA data from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research shows the Distribution of number of years in poverty 2001–2015. The figure focuses on the longer term experience of working age adults and shows that while people do fall into poverty, only a small proportion of people are persistently poor.

Egypt EG: Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data was reported at 27.800 % in 2015. This records an increase from the previous number of 26.300 % for 2012. Egypt EG: Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 23.400 % from Dec 1999 (Median) to 2015, with 6 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 27.800 % in 2015 and a record low of 16.700 % in 1999. Egypt EG: Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Egypt – Table EG.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. National poverty headcount ratio is the percentage of the population living below the national poverty lines. National estimates are based on population-weighted subgroup estimates from household surveys.; ; World Bank, Global Poverty Working Group. Data are compiled from official government sources or are computed by World Bank staff using national (i.e. country–specific) poverty lines.; ; This series only includes estimates that to the best of our knowledge are reasonably comparable over time for a country. Due to differences in estimation methodologies and poverty lines, estimates should not be compared across countries.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Poverty (EQ5)

FULL MEASURE NAME The share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit

LAST UPDATED December 2018

DESCRIPTION Poverty refers to the share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit, which varies based on the number of individuals in a given household. It reflects the number of individuals who are economically struggling due to low household income levels.

DATA SOURCE U.S Census Bureau: Decennial Census http://www.nhgis.org (1980-1990) http://factfinder2.census.gov (2000)

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey Form C17002 (2006-2017) http://api.census.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) The U.S. Census Bureau defines a national poverty level (or household income) that varies by household size, number of children in a household, and age of householder. The national poverty level does not vary geographically even though cost of living is different across the United States. For the Bay Area, where cost of living is high and incomes are correspondingly high, an appropriate poverty level is 200% of poverty or twice the national poverty level, consistent with what was used for past equity work at MTC and ABAG. For comparison, however, both the national and 200% poverty levels are presented.

For Vital Signs, the poverty rate is defined as the number of people (including children) living below twice the poverty level divided by the number of people for whom poverty status is determined. Poverty rates do not include unrelated individuals below 15 years old or people who live in the following: institutionalized group quarters, college dormitories, military barracks, and situations without conventional housing. The household income definitions for poverty change each year to reflect inflation. The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). For the national poverty level definitions by year, see: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html For an explanation on how the Census Bureau measures poverty, see: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html

For the American Community Survey datasets, 1-year data was used for region, county, and metro areas whereas 5-year rolling average data was used for city and census tract.

To be consistent across metropolitan areas, the poverty definition for non-Bay Area metros is twice the national poverty level. Data were not adjusted for varying income and cost of living levels across the metropolitan areas.

In 2025, nearly 11.7 percent of the world population in extreme poverty, with the poverty threshold at 2.15 U.S. dollars a day, lived in Nigeria. Moreover, the Democratic Republic of the Congo accounted for around 11.7 percent of the global population in extreme poverty. Other African nations with a large poor population were Tanzania, Mozambique, and Madagascar. Poverty levels remain high despite the forecast decline Poverty is a widespread issue across Africa. Around 429 million people on the continent were living below the extreme poverty line of 2.15 U.S. dollars a day in 2024. Since the continent had approximately 1.4 billion inhabitants, roughly a third of Africa’s population was in extreme poverty that year. Mozambique, Malawi, Central African Republic, and Niger had Africa’s highest extreme poverty rates based on the 2.15 U.S. dollars per day extreme poverty indicator (updated from 1.90 U.S. dollars in September 2022). Although the levels of poverty on the continent are forecast to decrease in the coming years, Africa will remain the poorest region compared to the rest of the world. Prevalence of poverty and malnutrition across Africa Multiple factors are linked to increased poverty. Regions with critical situations of employment, education, health, nutrition, war, and conflict usually have larger poor populations. Consequently, poverty tends to be more prevalent in least-developed and developing countries worldwide. For similar reasons, rural households also face higher poverty levels. In 2024, the extreme poverty rate in Africa stood at around 45 percent among the rural population, compared to seven percent in urban areas. Together with poverty, malnutrition is also widespread in Africa. Limited access to food leads to low health conditions, increasing the poverty risk. At the same time, poverty can determine inadequate nutrition. Almost 38.3 percent of the global undernourished population lived in Africa in 2022.

Percent of family households living below the poverty line measures the percentage of households, out of all households in an area, whose income fell below the poverty threshold. Federal and state governments use such estimates to allocate funds to local communities. Local communities use these estimates to identify the number of individuals or families eligible for various programs. Source: American Community Survey Years Available: 2011-2015, 2012-2016, 2013-2017, 2014-2018, 2015-2019, 2017-2021, 2018-2022

Nigeria NG: Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data was reported at 46.000 % in 2009. This records a decrease from the previous number of 48.400 % for 2003. Nigeria NG: Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 47.200 % from Dec 2003 (Median) to 2009, with 2 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 48.400 % in 2003 and a record low of 46.000 % in 2009. Nigeria NG: Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Nigeria – Table NG.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. National poverty headcount ratio is the percentage of the population living below the national poverty lines. National estimates are based on population-weighted subgroup estimates from household surveys.; ; World Bank, Global Poverty Working Group. Data are compiled from official government sources or are computed by World Bank staff using national (i.e. country–specific) poverty lines.; ; This series only includes estimates that to the best of our knowledge are reasonably comparable over time for a country. Due to differences in estimation methodologies and poverty lines, estimates should not be compared across countries.

This layer contains information about the estimated numbers of people living below the poverty line used for the purposes of the Integrated Context Analysis (ICA) run in the Philippines in 2014. Data source: Philippines National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), 2012.

Abstract

In this report, we present data from the emergency response survey conducted via telephone among households in three conflict affected regions of Nigeria, North East, North Central and South South between August-September 2017. This round is the second round of telephone data collected from a subsample of households in the Nigeria General Household Survey (GHS). The first round collected data on conflict exposure.

The purpose of this second round of data collection was to understand food insecurity in conflict affected regions. Armed conflict can have a detrimental effect on food security. This might be due to for example reduced agricultural production, or price increases due to malfunctioning markets. Food insecurity might be permanent, such that a household living below the poverty line has a constant struggle to acquire food from the market or produce food for their own use. In situations such as armed conflict, also better endowed households might be temporarily food insecure. In this report, we find that food insecurity is a major concern in all the three regions studied:

· The mean household in all the three regions is “highly food insecure” · North East of Nigeria is the most food insecure of the three regions · Reducing meals or portion size is the most important coping strategy in all three regions · Food prices are the most important source of food insecurity in all three regions · A large majority of households rely on the market as the main source of food in all regions. Price concerns should therefore be taken very seriously by policy makers. · Households in all three regions do not report there being an inadequate supply of food in the market.

Geographic coverage

Zones States Local Government Areas (LGAs) Households

Analysis unit

Individuals, Households and Communities

Universe

The Survey covered all household members. The questionnaire was administered to only one respondent per household - most often a male household head.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The food security survey was a telephone based survey conducted between August 15th and September 8th 2017. The interview was the second round of a telephone survey using a sub-set of the sample of GHS (General Household Survey) households. The first round of the telephone interview was administered during spring 2017 with 717 completed interviews with the following geographical distribution: 175 interviews in the North East, 276 in North Central and 266 in South South. The first round was focused on conflict exposure, while the second round discussed in this report focused on food insecurity in conflict affected regions.

In the three conflict affected geographical zones comprising of 16 states of Nigeria, households from LGS's that had high conflict exposure were oversampled chosen for a pilot sample, conducted before the telephone surveys. These LGS's were chosen based on the following criteria: The oversampled LGS's needed to have over 10 conflict events during 2012-14 recorded in the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) database.

The first round of the telephone survey (which took place after the pilot) first attempted to reach 742 households from the GHS panel, of which 529 could be reached and interviewed. The rest did not have phone numbers or functioning phone numbers (only 2.7 percent refused to answer). In order to increase the sample size to a level that was considered adequate for the survey, an additional 288 replacement households were included in the sample also from the GHS panel. Out of these replacement households 188 could be interviewed. Therefore altogether 1030 households were attempted to be reached, with a final sample size of 717 completed interviews.

Conflict affected areas were oversampled in order to have a large enough sample of households that in fact experienced conflict events in order to shed light on the type of events that have happened. A random sample of the zones might have given too small sample of conflict affected households and therefore restricted the analysis of the various types of conflict events. Due to the oversampling however, the sample drawn was not representative at the level of the geographical zone, as is the case in the GHS. Therefore in the analysis we use sampling weights that adjust for the propensity of being in a conflict affected LGA in order to ensure that the sample is representative at the level of the geographical zone.

During the second round of the survey 582 of the 717 households were re-interviewed on food security related issues (only the 717 were attempted to be reached). Of the 582 households 147 in the North East, 219 in North Central, and 216 in South South were interviewed. The attrition rates in our sample from round one to round two are hence 16 percent, 21 percent, and 19 percent for North East, North Central and South South, respectively. The attrition from the conflict survey round was mostly due to not being able to reach the respondents possibly due to non-functioning phone numbers. Only 3 percent of respondents refused to answer.

Similar telephone-based surveys are being conducted in six countries in Sub-Saharan Africa under the World Bank project "Listening to Africa". As a comparison, a mobile phone survey in Tanzania (see Croke et al. 2012 for details), had a high drop-out rate between the very first rounds from 550 to 458 respondents, but very low attrition for the subsequent rounds for the 458 respondents, who could reliably be reached by a mobile phone. In light of this reference point and also considering the fact that the households interviewed live in conflict affected regions, our attrition rates seem to be within reasonable limits.

Sampling deviation

No Deviation

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [cati]

Research instrument

The questionnaire is divided into 9 sections including a household roster. Information on food insecurity (the coping strategy index, CSI), food and market access, water quality, employment, income, employment and assets was collected.

Cleaning operations

Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics in Stata 15. All data analysis was tracked using comprehensive do files to ensure reproducibility. All statistics presented in this report have been adjusted with probability weights, when possible, to be representative at the level of the geopolitical zone. Demographics for each geopolitical zone were analyzed based on the complete GHS 2016 dataset.

Response rate

The first round of the telephone survey (which took place after the pilot), first attempted to reach 742 households from the GHS panel, of which 529 could be reached and interviewed. The rest did not have phone numbers or functioning phone numbers (only 2.7 per cent refused to answer). In order to increase the sample size to a level that was considered adequate for the survey, an additional 288 replacement households were included in the sample also from the GHS panel. Out of these replacement households 188 could be interviewed. Therefore altogether 1030 households were attempted to be reached, with a final sample size of 717 completed interviews. The response rate is 96%

Sampling error estimates

No Sampling Error

Data appraisal

Limitations Recall Bias In the pilot data collection, respondents were asked to report on conflict events that had taken place in their family and their community over the last six years. This extremely long recall period must be considered when drawing inferences from the data. People are likely to under-report less severe (and therefore less memorable) events, particularly those that happened to community members in larger communities. Respondents are also more likely to recall events that happened to family members than those that happened to community members. Other biases may also be at play - for example, those who have been most highly affected by conflict over the last six years may have moved to another community. These factors demonstrate the importance of implementing a regular data collection schedule, which would allow far more accurate data to be collected. Sampling Bias The GHS is a panel survey taking place over multiple rounds through a period of time. Therefore, households that are more mobile or households that are nomadic are less likely to be represented in this sample. This may be particularly relevant in circumstances where nomadic groups are named as perpetrators of conflict events. Power Dynamics There are some disadvantages to the phone system, and for this reason it should be supplemented by additional types of data collection wherever possible. In a mobile phone survey, the respondent is the person who owns a mobile phone. In many areas, particularly those highly affected by poverty and those located in rural areas, only one family member owns a mobile phone. This is generally the household head, who is most likely male. Furthermore, in many of these communities, women are not allowed to have access to mobile phones and are forbidden from speaking to outsiders, which can prohibit mobile phone-based data collection. Gender Dynamics The questionnaire was administered to only one respondent per household - most often a male household head. This means that crimes that carry stigma, especially sexual violence, are less likely to be reported. In this dataset, no sexual assault was reported despite data collected elsewhere that indicate that rape was used as a weapon by Boko Haram

A crude version of the INFORM risk-framework is applied to Enumeration Areas (which is unofficial, but is deeper than admin-3), in Southern Malawi. This is done specifically for area selection regarding the ECHO2 project in 3 TA's: Mwambo (Zomba district), Makhwira (Chikwawa district) and Ndamera (Nsanje district).

Scope

Enumeration areas are retrieved from http://www.masdap.mw/layers/geonode%3Aeas_bnd. These are used, because we want to prioritize on a deeper level than Traditional Authority (admin-3) level, and there are no other official boundaries available.

The dataset in principle data for the whole of Malawi, but contains 4 filters, which can be applied, which are the following:

• Filter_south: this filters out only the South of Malawi, for which the drough and flood analysis has been carried out (see details below).
• Filter_district: contains all EA's from the 3 pre-identified districts Zomba, Chikwawa and Nsanje.
• Filter_TA: contains all EA's from the 3 pre-identified TAs Mwambo, Makhwira and Ndamera.
• Filter_GVH: there are also 44 Group Village Heads pre-identified for the project. As these GVH's are points on a map, all EA's are selected here which have a GVH within their boundaries or very close to their boundaries.

INFORM risk-framework

The INFORM framework (http://www.inform-index.org/) is applied to assess risk per community, which is considered the main criteria for prioritization within the project.

Because of low data availability we apply a crude version for now, with only some important indicators of the framework actually used. Since we feel that these indicators (see below) still constitute together a current good assessment of risk, and we want to stimulate the use and acceptance of the INFORM-framework, we choose to use it anyway.

The INFORM risk-score consists of 3 main components: hazards, vulnerability and coping capacity.

• Hazard: For hazard we focus - in line with the ECHO2 project - on floods and droughts only. Analysis has been carried out (see more details below), to determine flood and drought risk on a scale from 0-10 with a resolution of 250meter grid cells. This has subsequently been aggregated to Enumeration Areas, by taking a population-weighted average. Thereby taking into account where people actually live within the Enumeration Areas. (Population data source: Worldpop: http://www.worldpop.org.uk/data/summary/?doi=10.5258/SOTON/WP00155)

• Vulnerability: Vulnerability is operationalized here through poverty incidence. Poverty rate (living below $1.25/day) is retrieved from Worldpop (http://www.worldpop.org.uk/data/summary/?doi=10.5258/SOTON/WP00157) and again transformed from a 1km resolution grid to Enumeration Areas through a population-weighted average.

• Lack of Coping capacity: Coping capacity is measured through traveltimes to various facilities, namely traveltime to nearest hospistal, traveltime to nearest trading centre and traveltime to nearest secondary school. Together these are all proxies of being near/far to facilities, and thereby an indicator of having higher/lower coping capacity. See https://510.global/developing-and-field-testing-a-remoteness-indicator-in-malawi/ for more information on how these traveltimes were calculated and validated.

Use

All features are stored in a CSV, but can easily be joined to the geographic shapefile to make maps on EACODE.

Flood and Drought calculations

Drought layer

The drought risk map was created by analyzing rainfall data in the past 20 years using standard precipitation index (SPI) , which is a widely used index in drought analysis. Based on SPI6 values for the period October-march, which is the main rainy season in Malawi. Each pixel is classified to drought or no drought for each year based on SPI6 values, drought year if SPI value for a pixel is less than -1. Next, relative frequency is calculated, the number of times drought has occurred in the considered 20 year period. This frequency is then converted to probability of drought occurrence in a given year. We validated our analysis by comparing NDVI values for the drought year against long term average values.

Flood layer

To identify flood moments in Malawi Landsat imagery was studied (1984-2017). Floods were clearly evidenced in 9 dates. For the clearest and most representative layers the mNDWI (modified Normalized Water Index) was calculated. The index mNDWI (McFeeters 1996; Xu 2006) for Landsat bands is calculated as follows: (b2GREEN-b7MIRSWIR/b2GREEN+b7MIRSWIR). In this variation of the index the higher values are the wettest. A threshold was applied to the mNDWI to separate flood from non-flood or water from non-water pixels. The resulting layers were aggregated and the final stretched from 0-10, where 0 are the pixels where no flood is expected while pixels with 10 are where most frequent flood has been evidenced and therefore expected. The largest flood was observed in 2015, as the scenes were cloudy the flood extent was manually interpreted from several scenes. The evidenced flood dates are: 29 Feb. 1988 low flood, 19 march 1989, 17 march 1997, Feb 1998, March 1999 low flood, 2001 since February 16 until end of April, 2007 17 February since early Feb., 2008 Feb. medium flood, 2015 January – March. The water bodies in this layer are not represented and have a value of 0 like the rest of land where flood is absent.

Abstract

In 2013, the EU-SILC instrument covered all EU Member States plus Iceland, Turkey, Norway, Switzerland and Croatia. EU-SILC has become the EU reference source for comparative statistics on income distribution and social exclusion at European level, particularly in the context of the "Program of Community action to encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion" and for producing structural indicators on social cohesion for the annual spring report to the European Council. The first priority is to be given to the delivery of comparable, timely and high quality cross-sectional data.

There are two types of datasets: 1) Cross-sectional data pertaining to fixed time periods, with variables on income, poverty, social exclusion and living conditions. 2) Longitudinal data pertaining to individual-level changes over time, observed periodically - usually over four years.

Social exclusion and housing-condition information is collected at household level. Income at a detailed component level is collected at personal level, with some components included in the "Household" section. Labor, education and health observations only apply to persons aged 16 and over. EU-SILC was established to provide data on structural indicators of social cohesion (at-risk-of-poverty rate, S80/S20 and gender pay gap) and to provide relevant data for the two 'open methods of coordination' in the field of social inclusion and pensions in Europe.

This is the 1st version of the 2013 Cross-Sectional User Database as released in July 2015.

Geographic coverage

The survey covers following countries: Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Spain; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Hungary; Malta; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Slovenia; Slovakia; Serbia; Sweden; United Kingdom; Iceland; Norway; Turkey; Switzerland

Small parts of the national territory amounting to no more than 2% of the national population and the national territories listed below may be excluded from EU-SILC: France - French Overseas Departments and territories; Netherlands - The West Frisian Islands with the exception of Texel; Ireland - All offshore islands with the exception of Achill, Bull, Cruit, Gorumna, Inishnee, Lettermore, Lettermullan and Valentia; United Kingdom - Scotland north of the Caledonian Canal, the Scilly Islands.

Analysis unit

• Households;
• Individuals 16 years and older.

Universe

The survey covered all household members over 16 years old. Persons living in collective households and in institutions are generally excluded from the target population.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

On the basis of various statistical and practical considerations and the precision requirements for the most critical variables, the minimum effective sample sizes to be achieved were defined. Sample size for the longitudinal component refers, for any pair of consecutive years, to the number of households successfully interviewed in the first year in which all or at least a majority of the household members aged 16 or over are successfully interviewed in both the years.

For the cross-sectional component, the plans are to achieve the minimum effective sample size of around 131.000 households in the EU as a whole (137.000 including Iceland and Norway). The allocation of the EU sample among countries represents a compromise between two objectives: the production of results at the level of individual countries, and production for the EU as a whole. Requirements for the longitudinal data will be less important. For this component, an effective sample size of around 98.000 households (103.000 including Iceland and Norway) is planned.

Member States using registers for income and other data may use a sample of persons (selected respondents) rather than a sample of complete households in the interview survey. The minimum effective sample size in terms of the number of persons aged 16 or over to be interviewed in detail is in this case taken as 75 % of the figures shown in columns 3 and 4 of the table I, for the cross-sectional and longitudinal components respectively.

The reference is to the effective sample size, which is the size required if the survey were based on simple random sampling (design effect in relation to the 'risk of poverty rate' variable = 1.0). The actual sample sizes will have to be larger to the extent that the design effects exceed 1.0 and to compensate for all kinds of non-response. Furthermore, the sample size refers to the number of valid households which are households for which, and for all members of which, all or nearly all the required information has been obtained. For countries with a sample of persons design, information on income and other data shall be collected for the household of each selected respondent and for all its members.

At the beginning, a cross-sectional representative sample of households is selected. It is divided into say 4 sub-samples, each by itself representative of the whole population and similar in structure to the whole sample. One sub-sample is purely cross-sectional and is not followed up after the first round. Respondents in the second sub-sample are requested to participate in the panel for 2 years, in the third sub-sample for 3 years, and in the fourth for 4 years. From year 2 onwards, one new panel is introduced each year, with request for participation for 4 years. In any one year, the sample consists of 4 sub-samples, which together constitute the cross-sectional sample. In year 1 they are all new samples; in all subsequent years, only one is new sample. In year 2, three are panels in the second year; in year 3, one is a panel in the second year and two in the third year; in subsequent years, one is a panel for the second year, one for the third year, and one for the fourth (final) year.

According to the Commission Regulation on sampling and tracing rules, the selection of the sample will be drawn according to the following requirements:

1. For all components of EU-SILC (whether survey or register based), the crosssectional and longitudinal (initial sample) data shall be based on a nationally representative probability sample of the population residing in private households within the country, irrespective of language, nationality or legal residence status. All private households and all persons aged 16 and over within the household are eligible for the operation.
2. Representative probability samples shall be achieved both for households, which form the basic units of sampling, data collection and data analysis, and for individual persons in the target population.
3. The sampling frame and methods of sample selection shall ensure that every individual and household in the target population is assigned a known and non-zero probability of selection.
4. By way of exception, paragraphs 1 to 3 shall apply in Germany exclusively to the part of the sample based on probability sampling according to Article 8 of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 1177/2003 concerning

Community Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. Article 8 of the EU-SILC Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council mentions: 1. The cross-sectional and longitudinal data shall be based on nationally representative probability samples. 2. By way of exception to paragraph 1, Germany shall supply cross-sectional data based on a nationally representative probability sample for the first time for the year 2008. For the year 2005, Germany shall supply data for one fourth based on probability sampling and for three fourths based on quota samples, the latter to be progressively replaced by random selection so as to achieve fully representative probability sampling by 2008. For the longitudinal component, Germany shall supply for the year 2006 one third of longitudinal data (data for year 2005 and 2006) based on probability sampling and two thirds based on quota samples. For the year 2007, half of the longitudinal data relating to years 2005, 2006 and 2007 shall be based on probability sampling and half on quota sample. After 2007 all of the longitudinal data shall be based on probability sampling.

Detailed information about sampling is available in Quality Reports in Related Materials.

Mode of data collection

Mixed

Abstract

The purpose of this second round of data collection was to understand food insecurity in conflict affected regions. Armed conflict can have a detrimental effect on food security. This might be due to for example reduced agricultural production, or price increases due to malfunctioning markets. Food insecurity might be permanent, such that a household living below the poverty line has a constant struggle to acquire food from the market or produce food for their own use. In situations such as armed conflict, also better endowed households might be temporarily food insecure. In this report, we find that food insecurity is a major concern in all the three regions studied:

• The mean household in all the three regions is “highly food insecure”.

• North East of Nigeria is the most food insecure of the three regions.

• Reducing meals or portion size is the most important coping strategy in all three regions.

• Food prices are the most important source of food insecurity in all three regions.

• A large majority of households rely on the market as the main source of food in all regions. Price concerns should therefore be taken very seriously by policy makers.

• Households in all three regions do not report there being an inadequate supply of food in the market.

Geographic coverage

Zones, States and Local Government Areas (LGAs).

Analysis unit

• Individuals

• Households

• Communities

Universe

The survey covered all household members. The questionnaire was administered to only one respondent per household - most often a male household head.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

In the three conflict affected geographical zones comprising of 16 states of Nigeria, households from LGS's that had high conflict exposure were oversampled chosen for a pilot sample, conducted before the telephone surveys. These LGS's were chosen based on the following criteria: The oversampled LGS's needed to have over 10 conflict events during 2012-14 recorded in the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) database.

The first round of the telephone survey (which took place after the pilot) first attempted to reach 742 households from the GHS panel, of which 529 could be reached and interviewed. The rest did not have phone numbers or functioning phone numbers (only 2.7 percent refused to answer). In order to increase the sample size to a level that was considered adequate for the survey, an additional 288 replacement households were included in the sample also from the GHS panel. Out of these replacement households 188 could be interviewed. Therefore altogether 1030 households were attempted to be reached, with a final sample size of 717 completed interviews.

Conflict affected areas were oversampled in order to have a large enough sample of households that in fact experienced conflict events in order to shed light on the type of events that have happened. A random sample of the zones might have given too small sample of conflict affected households and therefore restricted the analysis of the various types of conflict events. Due to the oversampling however, the sample drawn was not representative at the level of the geographical zone, as is the case in the GHS. Therefore in the analysis we use sampling weights that adjust for the propensity of being in a conflict affected LGA in order to ensure that the sample is representative at the level of the geographical zone.

During the second round of the survey 582 of the 717 households were re-interviewed on food security related issues (only the 717 were attempted to be reached). Of the 582 households 147 in the North East, 219 in North Central, and 216 in South South were interviewed. The attrition rates in our sample from round one to round two are hence 16 percent, 21 percent, and 19 percent for North East, North Central and South South, respectively. The attrition from the conflict survey round was mostly due to not being able to reach the respondents possibly due to non-functioning phone numbers. Only 3 percent of respondents refused to answer.

Similar telephone-based surveys are being conducted in six countries in Sub-Saharan Africa under the World Bank project "Listening to Africa". As a comparison, a mobile phone survey in Tanzania (see Croke et al. 2012 for details), had a high drop-out rate between the very first rounds from 550 to 458 respondents, but very low attrition for the subsequent rounds for the 458 respondents, who could reliably be reached by a mobile phone. In light of this reference point and also considering the fact that the households interviewed live in conflict affected regions, our attrition rates seem to be within reasonable limits.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [cati]

Research instrument

The questionnaire is divided into 9 sections including a household roster. Information on food insecurity (the coping strategy index, CSI), food and market access, water quality, employment, income, employment and assets were collected.

Cleaning operations

Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics in Stata 15. All data analysis was tracked using comprehensive do files to ensure reproducibility. All statistics presented in this report have been adjusted with probability weights, when possible, to be representative at the level of the geopolitical zone.

Demographics for each geopolitical zone were analyzed based on the complete GHS 2016 dataset.

Response rate

The first round of the telephone survey (which took place after the pilot), first attempted to reach 742 households from the GHS panel, of which 529 could be reached and interviewed. The rest did not have phone numbers or functioning phone numbers (only 2.7 percent refused to answer). In order to increase the sample size to a level that was considered adequate for the survey, an additional 288 replacement households were included in the sample also from the GHS panel. Out of these replacement households, 188 could be interviewed. Therefore altogether 1030 households were attempted to be reached, with a final sample size of 717 completed interviews.

The response rate is 96%.

Data appraisal

Limitations

• Recall Bias

In the pilot data collection, respondents were asked to report on conflict events that had taken place in their family and their community over the last six years. This extremely long recall period must be considered when drawing inferences from the data. People are likely to under-report less severe (and therefore less memorable) events, particularly those that happened to community members in larger communities. Respondents are also more likely to recall events that happened to family members than those that happened to community members. Other biases may also be at play - for example, those who have been most highly affected by conflict over the last six years may have moved to another community. These factors demonstrate the importance of implementing a regular data collection schedule, which would allow for more accurate data to be collected.

• Sampling Bias

The GHS is a panel survey taking place over multiple rounds through a period of time. Therefore, households that are more mobile or households that are nomadic are less likely to be represented in this sample. This may be particularly relevant in circumstances where nomadic groups are named as perpetrators of conflict events.

• Power Dynamics There are some disadvantages to the phone system, and for this reason, it should be supplemented by additional types of data collection wherever possible. In a mobile phone survey, the respondent is the person who owns a mobile phone. In many areas, particularly those highly affected by poverty and those located in rural areas, only one family member owns a mobile phone. This is generally the household head, who is most likely male. Furthermore, in many of these communities, women are not allowed to have access to mobile phones and are forbidden from speaking to outsiders, which can prohibit mobile phone-based data collection.

• Gender Dynamics The questionnaire was administered to only one respondent per household - most often a male household head. This means that crimes that carry a stigma, especially sexual violence, are less likely to be reported. In this dataset, no sexual assault was reported despite data collected elsewhere that indicate that rape was used as a weapon by Boko Haram and elsewhere. This also means that violence that affects members of the household with less power (such as women, children, and employees), is less likely to be reported. This may be particularly important when considering violence not related to ongoing external conflict, such as domestic violence.

During 2019 to 2021, almost 15 percent of the Indian population were reportedly multidimensionally poor. This reflected a much lower percentage of multidimensionally poor population in India. India has made significant progress in multidimensional poverty over the years. The share of multidimensional poor is expected to decline to around 11 percent during 2022 to 2023.

Literacy in India has been increasing as more and more people receive a better education, but it is still far from all-encompassing. In 2022, the degree of literacy in India was about 76.32 percent, with the majority of literate Indians being men. It is estimated that the global literacy rate for people aged 15 and above is about 86 percent. How to read a literacy rateIn order to identify potential for intellectual and educational progress, the literacy rate of a country covers the level of education and skills acquired by a country’s inhabitants. Literacy is an important indicator of a country’s economic progress and the standard of living – it shows how many people have access to education. However, the standards to measure literacy cannot be universally applied. Measures to identify and define illiterate and literate inhabitants vary from country to country: In some, illiteracy is equated with no schooling at all, for example. Writings on the wallGlobally speaking, more men are able to read and write than women, and this disparity is also reflected in the literacy rate in India – with scarcity of schools and education in rural areas being one factor, and poverty another. Especially in rural areas, women and girls are often not given proper access to formal education, and even if they are, many drop out. Today, India is already being surpassed in this area by other emerging economies, like Brazil, China, and even by most other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. To catch up, India now has to offer more educational programs to its rural population, not only on how to read and write, but also on traditional gender roles and rights.