Effects of Safety Net Programmes on Livelihoods of Vulnarable Groups in Turkana South Sub-County, Kenya

Effects of Safety Net Programmes on Livelihoods of Vulnarable Groups in Turkana South Sub-County, Kenya

Crispus Lokorkor Ekaale^*, Prof. Alice Kurgat, Dr. Peter Buluma

Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya

^*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.807004

Received: 21 June 2024; Accepted: 28 June 2024; Published: 25 July 2024

ABSTRACT

Safety net programs (SNPs) have become essential protective measures for the poor, vulnerable, and marginalized populations in both urban and rural areas worldwide. In Kenya, similar to other sub-Saharan nations, policies have been established to ensure cash flow in local markets, stabilize domestic food supplies, alleviate hunger among food-insecure populations, and promote sustainable livelihoods. Despite these interventions, a significant portion of households remains in poverty, with Turkana County having the highest rate at 77.7%, according to the Kenya Poverty Report, 2021.This study aimed to investigate the impact of safety net programs on the livelihoods of vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County, Kenya. The specific objectives were to: examine the nature of cash and food transfer programs in the region; analyze the effects of cash transfer programs on the livelihoods of vulnerable groups; evaluate the impact of food transfer programs; and assess the future sustainability of these safety net programs. The study utilized Standard Economic Theory and the Theory of Change. A comparative research design was chosen to evaluate the effectiveness of cash and food transfers in meeting basic needs, assessing economic impact, determining sustainability, and gauging beneficiary satisfaction. The study population included households from four main government cash transfer programs under the National Safety Net Programs (NSNP) and the Turkana County government’s food distribution program supported by the World Food Program and World Vision Kenya. The sample consisted of 57 households benefiting from government cash transfer programs and 93 households from the county’s food transfer program, out of a total of 11,682 and 19,248 targeted households, respectively. To gather additional insights, 10 focus group discussions (FGDs) and twenty-five key informant interviews were conducted. Beneficiaries were purposefully selected based on their receipt of either cash or food transfers, and the data were stratified into cash and food transfer categories. Data collection methods included open-ended and closed-ended questionnaires, focus group interviews, and key informant discussions, supplemented by secondary data from both state and non-state actors and technical coordination units from the county. The study employed a mixed-method approach, combining qualitative and quantitative research with a comparative research design. Qualitative data was coded to identify patterns, trends, and relationships, and then analyzed thematically. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as percentages, graphs, and tables. The findings indicate a diverse perspective among respondents regarding the effectiveness of cash and food transfers in addressing the needs of vulnerable groups. While 41% favored cash transfers for their flexibility, 39% preferred food transfers for their immediate nutritional benefits. Additionally, 20% were open to either type of transfer, showing a flexible approach to assistance. The study also highlights the importance of continuous monitoring and evaluation to adaptively improve program effectiveness. Furthermore, the research identifies challenges in targeting, enrollment, and inclusivity, stressing the need for refined strategies to reach vulnerable populations. It recommends shifting from unconditional to conditional cash transfer programs. Suggested conditions include support for pregnant women, malnourished children under 3 or 5 years old, linking vulnerable groups with health institutions for immunizations, and connecting school-age children to early childhood education centers. Additionally, conditions should promote economic inclusion through entrepreneurship support, education and skills development, and access to financial services. Food transfers should complement households’ efforts to sustain themselves and protect their assets. An additional suggestion is to link safety net receivership with conditions such as requiring households to plant trees, which would help address climate change.

Keywords: cash transfer programs, food transfer programs, livelihoods of Vulnerable groups, safety net programs.

INTRODUCTION

A livelihood encompasses the skills, resources (including stores, claims, and access), and activities essential for living. A livelihood is deemed sustainable if it can handle and recover from stress and shocks, sustain or improve its capabilities and assets, and offer ongoing livelihood opportunities for future generations. Additionally, it should provide net benefits to other livelihoods locally and globally, both in the short and long term (Robert Chambers and Gordon Conway, 1992).

Food security refers to the state where all individuals have continuous access to a sufficient amount of safe and nutritious food, necessary for maintaining a healthy and active life. This involves ensuring food availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability (FAO, 2008). Addressing the issues of unsustainable livelihoods and vulnerabilities can help build resilience in societies, ensuring that individuals have continuous access to nutritious food, thereby reducing the risk of food insecurity.

In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), food insecurity worsened between 2021-2022, with over 28 million people experiencing severe food insecurity due to rising food prices and declining incomes, often because of asset sales and lack of alternative livelihoods. These problems are compounded by rapid population growth and climate change, leading to high levels of unsustainable livelihoods and food insecurity in the region (Mitra et al., 2022).

The 2022 Kenya Health Demographic Survey (KDHS) revealed that around 30% of Kenyan households lacked sustainable livelihoods, leading to food insecurity. This is similar to the 2015/2016 Kenya Household Budget Survey, which found that about 32% of Kenyans live below the food poverty line. Counties like Turkana, Mandera, Samburu, Marsabit, and Tana River reported food poverty rates over 40%, with Turkana facing the most severe challenges. The Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) 2021 Kenya Poverty Report highlighted these counties as having the highest severity of food poverty, with Turkana at a severity rate of 20%.

The 2023 report from Kenya’s National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) emphasized the severe impact of prolonged drought in the Horn of Africa, particularly in Kenya. The drought led to the loss of over 3 million livestock, depletion of critical water sources, and significant declines in crop yields. Additionally, the report noted that around 4.4 million people were facing acute food insecurity, including nearly 1 million children aged 6-59 months and 142,000 pregnant or breastfeeding women and girls requiring treatment for acute malnutrition. Rising food prices further aggravated the situation, especially in Kenya’s arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs), where many food-insecure households are located. These areas are further challenged by droughts, floods, and conflicts, which hinder their ability to cope with and recover from such shocks (Shibia 2023; Maione 2020; Devereux & Tibbo 2011).

Safety net programs are vital for building sustainable livelihoods and reducing poverty and vulnerability in ASALs. The government plays a central role in providing social protection, including food distribution, health insurance, price subsidies, school feeding programs, and cash transfers, with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) supporting these efforts. Cash transfers have become a preferred method for assisting vulnerable populations, with about 17% of Kenyan households receiving such assistance (KNBS, 2023).

Turkana County, with a population of 926,976 (Kenya Population and Housing Census 2019), is one of Kenya’s eight arid regions frequently affected by drought. It has become a focal point for interventions by both state and non-state actors and hosts many NGOs. These actors provide safety nets, including food and cash transfers, to the people of Turkana. However, prolonged drought, lack of sustainable livelihoods, and incidents of cattle rustling have increased the number of households needing frequent assistance, revealing gaps in these efforts.

The severity of the situation is highlighted by reports from the Kenya Food Security Steering Group and the European Union, classifying Turkana County, especially Turkana South sub-county, as facing a Phase IV (Emergency) IPC situation. The NDMA’s March-June 2023 report noted that 109,104 people in Turkana South sub-county urgently required food assistance during this period (NDMA Drought and Food Security Sitrep 15_May 2023). This recurring crisis necessitates a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of existing safety net programs on the livelihoods of vulnerable groups in Turkana South sub-county, Kenya.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The study by Haushofer and Shapiro (2016) in Kenya evaluated the impact of a large unconditional cash transfer program on household welfare. They found that cash transfers increased household income by an average of 29%, and recipient households spent more on consumption and improving overall living standards.

More Scholarly studies have shown that cash transfers lead to increased household income and improved consumption patterns. For instance, Cash Transfers, Food Security and Poverty Reduction in Zimbabwe (Mano et al., 2018) found that cash transfers significantly boosted household consumption and food security, especially among vulnerable groups Such as food, housing, healthcare, and education, leading to enhanced consumption and better well-being.

Handa et al. (2018) conducted a randomized control trial in Malawi and Zambia to assess the effects of cash transfers on food security. They observed that cash transfers led to a significant reduction in severe food insecurity and a decline in child stunting, indicating improved nutritional outcomes.

Cash transfers have been associated with improved food security and nutritional outcomes. Cash Transfers and Child Nutrition: What We Know and What We Need to Know”(Fenn et al., 2019) highlights that cash transfer programs have a positive impact on children’s nutrition, reducing stunting and malnutrition rates.

Baird et al. (2014) studied the impact of cash transfers in Malawi and reported that recipient households were more likely to invest in education and health. Children in beneficiary households had higher school enrollment rates and better health outcomes compared to non-beneficiary households.

Cash transfers enable households to invest in education and healthcare, leading to improved human capital. By covering school fees, uniforms, and other education-related expenses, children from beneficiary households are more likely to attend and stay in school. Similarly, access to healthcare services becomes more feasible, leading to better health outcomes.

Cash Transfers and Schooling: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation (Baird et al., 2013) have demonstrated that cash transfers can increase school enrollment and attendance, contributing to better educational outcomes and human capital development.

Covarrubias et al. (2012) analyzed the effects of cash transfers in Mexico and found that recipients invested in productive assets, such as livestock and agricultural inputs. The accumulation of assets enhanced the resilience of beneficiary households during economic downturns.

Barrientos and Villa (2013) conducted research on cash transfers in Brazil and emphasized that women in recipient households experienced increased empowerment. They had more say in household decisions and had a greater ability to shape their livelihood strategies.

Cash transfers, especially when targeted to women, can empower them within their households and communities. Increased control over financial resources allows women to have a say in decision-making processes, leading to more equitable resource allocation and better livelihood strategies.

Bastagli et al. (2016) conducted a meta-analysis of cash transfer programs across various countries and found consistent evidence of poverty reduction. Cash transfers were effective in reaching the poorest and most vulnerable populations, thus reducing income inequality.

Cash transfers have proven to be effective in reducing poverty and addressing income inequality. By targeting the most vulnerable populations, these programs directly lift households out of poverty and provide much-needed support to those facing economic hardships. Cash Transfers and Poverty Reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review of Experiences and Good Practices (Davis et al., 2019), have shown that cash transfers effectively reduce poverty and contribute to reducing income inequality.

The effects of food transfers on livelihoods have been a subject of scholarly discussions and research. One key aspect of these discussions is the comparison between food transfers and cash transfers. Standard microeconomic theory suggests that an equal-valued food transfer and cash transfer should have the same impact on household livelihoods, as they both increase disposable income. However, scholars have found that this assumption may not hold true in certain contexts, especially in rural settings where seasonality of income patterns and non-separable household consumption and production decisions come into play (Arslan & Taylor, 2009; Gentilini, 2014; LaFave & Thomas, 2016).

Studies have shown that food transfers have positive effects on household food security and nutritional status. Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler (2004) found that food assistance programs improve dietary diversity and help meet basic food needs among vulnerable households. Hoddinott et al. (2008) demonstrated that food transfers not only improve food consumption but also lead to improved health and school attendance, acting as a safety net during food shortages.

Food Transfers, Cash Transfers, and Income Transfers in Kenya (Devereux et al., 2015) found that food transfers significantly improved food security, ensuring that households had access to an adequate and diverse diet. Improved Food Security and Nutrition: Food transfers significantly contribute to improved food security and ensure that vulnerable households have access to an adequate and diverse diet. This leads to better nutritional outcomes, particularly for children and pregnant women. Improved Food Security and Nutrition:

The Impact of Food Transfers for Vulnerable Populations: A Systematic Review of Evidence (Pell et al., 2016) have demonstrated that food transfers contribute to better nutritional outcomes, especially for vulnerable groups like children and pregnant women. Enhanced Household Resilience: Food transfers act as a buffer during times of economic or climatic shocks, allowing households to maintain a more stable livelihood. This resilience enables them to withstand adverse events and recover more quickly. (Devereux & Sabates-Wheeler, 2004)

Food Transfers and Social Protection: Design, Impacts, and Political Economy (Sabates-Wheeler and Devereux, 2010) discusses how food transfers can enhance household resilience to shocks and economic downturns by ensuring access to essential food items. Enhanced Household Resilience: Food transfers help increase household resilience by providing a safety net during periods of food insecurity and economic downturns. They enable families to cope with shocks and maintain a more stable livelihood.

Can Food Transfers Improve the Nutritional Status of the Vulnerable Poor in Bangladesh? (Heltberg et al., 2016) suggests that food transfers can free up household resources, enabling families to invest in income-generating activities and diversify their income sources. Income Diversification: Food transfers free up household resources, allowing families to invest in income-generating activities and diversify their income sources, which can have long-term positive effects on livelihoods. Income Diversification:

Studies have shown that food transfers can stabilize livelihoods and prevent households from resorting to negative coping strategies during periods of food insecurity. Food Transfers and Coping Strategies in the Sahel (Maxwell et al., 2015) explores the relationship between food transfers and coping mechanisms. Stabilization of Livelihoods: By providing consistent access to food, food transfers prevent households from resorting to negative coping strategies during times of food scarcity and vulnerability. Stabilization of Livelihoods:

Evidence from a Randomized Cash Transfer Program (Bassett et al., 2015), assess the impact of food transfers on local markets, trade, and the potential for market distortion. Impact on Local Markets: Scholars explore the impact of food transfers on local markets, trade, and potential market distortions. This is an important consideration when designing food transfer programs Impact on Local Markets:

Some scholars have debated the merits and trade-offs between food transfers and cash transfers in achieving different development goals. Studies carried on the Comparative Lessons from the African Food Security Urban Network (Drimie and Eicher, 2017) discusses Trade-Offs with Cash Transfers. Here Scholars discuss the advantages and disadvantages of food transfers compared to cash transfers in achieving different development goals. The choice between these two types of transfers depends on the specific objectives of the program and the needs of the target population. Trade-Offs with Cash Transfers

Therefore, it’s important to recognize that food transfers can have varied effects depending on the specific program design, target population, and local context. Additionally, many food transfer programs are integrated with other social protection measures, and their effectiveness may depend on the coordination and implementation of complementary interventions. Scholars continue to explore these dynamics to inform policies and programs aimed at addressing food insecurity and improving livelihoods in vulnerable populations.

Kareithi (2014) conducted a study on the food security situation in Turkana district now Turkana County and analyzed the external interventions and drought and famine management strategies. He identified some of the community’s coping strategies which included nomadic migration of people and their herds, storage of food and fodder, diversification of economic activities, seeking relief from Donors like Government of Kenya.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research design

To achieve this, the researcher aimed to employ a comparative research design that combines both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods (Esser & Vliegenthart, 2017). This approach allowed the researcher to gather diverse perspectives and insights from various stakeholders, including beneficiaries and program implementers.

Target Population of the Study

The study focused on understanding the impact of safety net interventions on vulnerable households and communities in the sub-county. The total population for the study is 31,203 beneficiaries who comprised of Cash and food transfers safety net programmes as shown in the table 3.1 and 3.2 below.

Table 3.1: Target Population for Cash transfers in Turkana South Sub- County

Source: Department of Social Safety Net Programme (2022)

Table 3.2: Turkana county Government Targeted population for food Transfers in Turkana south sub-county

Source: Department of Disaster, Turkana County Government (2022)

Sample size

For each statum, the proportions were arrived at based on the following formula

Where

n₁ = sample size of strata

n = Number of individuals in every stratum

N = Total population size

N₁ = Total sample size

Table 3.3: Sample Size cash transfer

Source: Department of Social Safety Net Programme (2023)

Table 3:4 Sample Size Food Transfer

Source: Department of Disaster Management, Turkana County Government (2023)

Data analysis

In this study, the researcher employed two main methods for data analysis: thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. These approaches were used to comprehensively explore the effects of safety net programs on livelihoods in Turkana South sub-county, drawing insights from both qualitative and quantitative data. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data collected through questionnaires, focus group discussions and key informant interviews. On the other hand, the quantitative data obtained from the questionnaires was subjected to descriptive statistics. This data provided numerical insights into various aspects of the participants’ experiences with safety net programs. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, were be computed using Microsoft excel to summarize the data and present it in a concise and understandable manner. The researcher used tables and graphs to visually represent the quantitative findings, enabling readers to grasp key trends and patterns easily.

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Demographic statistics

Ward Demographic Results

The ward of Lokichar stands out as the most significant contributor, representing approximately (71) 47% of the total distribution in Turkana South followed by Lobokat at (40)27% and lastly by Katilu at (39)26%. This implies that nearly half of the measured variable is concentrated within Lokichar, making it a dominant and central ward in the context of this study. The higher percentage for Lokichar suggests that it plays a crucial role in the overall distribution or allocation of resources, population, or any other relevant factor in Turkana South.

Figure 4.1: wards demographics

locations demographics

The data on the effects of safety net programs on livelihood among vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County reveal distinct variations in the distribution of program impact across different regions within the sub-county. The percentages associated with each area provide insights into the differential effects of safety net initiatives:

In Katilu (Naligoi), the data indicates that the safety net programs contribute to approximately (5)3% of the livelihood improvement among vulnerable groups. This lower percentage suggests a relatively limited impact in Katilu, potentially highlighting areas where the safety net interventions may need further attention or adaptation to better address the needs of the vulnerable population in this specific region.

Nanga’rabat, on the other hand, shows a more significant impact, with safety net programs contributing to approximately (30)20% of livelihood improvement among vulnerable groups. This suggests a moderately positive influence in this area, indicating that the implemented safety net initiatives are making a more substantial difference in the livelihoods of the vulnerable population in Nanga’rabat compared to Naligoi village in Katilu.

Kainuk demonstrates a higher impact, with safety net programs contributing to approximately (42)28% of livelihood improvement among vulnerable groups. This indicates that the safety net initiatives are more effective or have a greater reach in Kainuk, potentially addressing the needs of the vulnerable population more comprehensively compared to Katilu and Nanga’rabat.

Napusumoru emerges as the area with the most substantial impact, where safety net programs contribute to approximately (73)49% of livelihood improvement among vulnerable groups. This high percentage suggests that the safety net interventions in Napusumoru are significantly benefiting the vulnerable population, making it a focal point for successful implementation and positive outcomes.

Figure 4.2: locations demographics

Gender Demographics

Among the vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County, the research reveals that a significant majority, constituting (118)79%, are males. This finding suggests that the effects of safety net programs, which are designed to support vulnerable individuals and communities, are more pronounced among males in this particular region. The higher percentage for males implies that they are disproportionately affected by, or benefit more from, the safety net initiatives as compared to females.

On the other hand, females make up (32)21% of the vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County according to the research. This lower percentage suggests that females within the vulnerable population are comparatively fewer in number, indicating potential disparities in the program’s impact on women.

Figure 4.3: gender demographics

Household Size Demographics

In households with 1 to 3 members, the data indicates a 0% participation rate in safety net programs. This suggests that safety net initiatives might not be reaching or addressing the needs of smaller households in Turkana South Sub-County. The absence of participation in this category raises questions about the accessibility, awareness, or relevance of safety net programs for these smaller family units.

For households with 4 to 6 members, there is a 21% participation rate in safety net programs. This implies a moderate level of engagement among medium-sized households, indicating that a proportion of families with this size are benefiting from the implemented safety net initiatives. Further investigation could reveal the factors influencing the participation rates within this category.

A significant percentage of households with 7 to 10 members, specifically 64%, are participating in safety net programs. This high percentage suggests that safety net initiatives have a substantial impact on the livelihoods of larger households in Turkana South Sub-County. It may reflect a targeted effort to support more extensive family units, recognizing their potentially higher vulnerability and economic needs.

For households with more than 11 members, the participation rate is 15%. While this is the lowest among the household size categories, it still indicates a notable presence of safety net programs in larger households.

Figure 4. 4: household size demographics

Age Demographics

The data on the effects of safety net programs on livelihood among vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County, categorized by age groups, offers insights into the distribution of program impact across different age demographics. The percentages associated with each age group provide a nuanced understanding of the effects:

Among individuals aged 18 to 30, the data indicates a (15)20% participation rate in safety net programs. This suggests that safety net initiatives are having a notable impact on the livelihoods of young adults in the region. The percentage reflects a substantial engagement within this age group, potentially addressing the specific needs and vulnerabilities of the younger demographic.

In the 31-40 age group, there is a slightly higher participation rate of (20)26%. This suggests that safety net programs are making a relatively stronger impact on individuals in their thirties. The higher percentage implies a substantial engagement and potential effectiveness in addressing livelihood challenges within this particular age bracket.

For individuals aged 41 to 50, the data shows a participation rate of (19) 25%. This indicates that safety net initiatives are also reaching and benefiting a significant portion of the middle-aged population. The percentage suggests a relatively balanced impact across this age group, contributing to livelihood improvement for individuals in their forties and fifties.

In the 51-60 age group, the participation rate is (12)16%. While slightly lower than the previous age categories, it still indicates a noteworthy presence of safety net programs among individuals in their fifties and early sixties. Understanding the unique challenges and vulnerabilities faced by this demographic could further optimize the effectiveness of safety net interventions.

For individuals above 60, the participation rate is (10)13%. This suggests that safety net programs are reaching a portion of the elderly population, contributing to their livelihood improvement. The lower percentage may reflect specific challenges or limitations faced by this age group in actively participating in such programs.

Figure 4.5: age demographics

level of education

The data on the effects of safety net programs on livelihood among vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County, categorized by education levels, provides crucial insights into the distribution of program impact across different educational backgrounds.

Among individuals with a primary education, the data indicates a (19)25% participation rate in safety net programs. This suggests that safety net initiatives are making a notable impact on the livelihoods of individuals with a primary level of education. The percentage reflects a significant engagement within this group, potentially addressing the specific needs and vulnerabilities of those with limited formal education.

For those with a secondary education, the participation rate is (1)1%. This lower percentage indicates a comparatively limited impact among individuals with a secondary level of education. Understanding the factors contributing to this lower participation could be crucial for optimizing the effectiveness of safety net programs for individuals with a secondary education background.

Similarly, individuals with tertiary education (such as vocational or technical training) also show a (1)1% participation rate in safety net programs. This suggests that safety net initiatives may have limited reach or effectiveness among individuals with higher levels of education beyond the secondary level. Exploring the reasons behind this limited participation can provide insights into potential barriers or challenges faced by this group.

The data indicates a 0% participation rate among individuals with a university education. This finding suggests that safety net programs may not be reaching individuals with university-level education in Turkana South Sub-County.

The majority of participants, (110)73%, reported having no formal education. This highlights a significant proportion of vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County who do not have access to or have not completed formal education. The high percentage underscores the importance of tailoring safety net programs to address the specific challenges faced by individuals with no formal education.

Figure 4.6: level of education

level of income

The data on income levels in Turkana South Sub-County, focusing on the effects of safety net programs on vulnerable groups, provides a nuanced understanding of the economic conditions among the targeted population. The percentages associated with each income category reveal distinct patterns and disparities, shedding light on the varying degrees of financial vulnerability within the community.

A significant finding is that nearly half of the participants, comprising (72)48%, report having nil income. This highlights a substantial portion of the vulnerable groups facing extreme economic challenges, where there is an absence of any income-generating activities. This underscores the critical need for targeted safety net programs that address the immediate livelihood gaps and provide foundational support to those with no current income.

In the next income category, (24)16% of participants report earnings below 5000. This suggests a group engaged in income-generating activities, albeit at a modest level. Safety net programs could focus on empowering individuals in this category by providing support for small-scale businesses, agricultural activities, or skill development programs, aiming to uplift them from the lower income bracket.

A significant proportion, (43)29%, falls within the income range of 5000 to 15000. This group represents a substantial segment of the vulnerable population earning a moderate income. Targeted interventions in this bracket could focus on enhancing economic stability, improving skills, and providing opportunities for entrepreneurship to further elevate the livelihoods of those in this income range.

In contrast, the income category between 15000 and 25000 includes only (2)1% of participants, indicating a minimal presence within this range. The data also reveals that (9)6% of participants report incomes above 25000. While this percentage is relatively small, it suggests the presence of individuals with higher income levels within the vulnerable groups.

Figure 4.7: level of income

Nature of Cash and Food Transfers in Turkana South-Sub County

The data on the awareness level of the Food Transfer Programme in Turkana South Sub-County, within the context of the effects of safety net programs on vulnerable groups, reveals a high level of awareness among the participants. The percentages indicate that a substantial majority, comprising (138)92% of the respondents, are aware of the Food Transfer Programme.

This high awareness level is a positive indicator of the effectiveness of communication and outreach strategies implemented to inform the vulnerable groups about the safety net initiative. A widespread understanding of the program is crucial for ensuring its accessibility and inclusivity, as awareness serves as a foundational step towards the successful implementation of such initiatives.

The (12)8% reported as not aware of the Food Transfer Programme signals a smaller but noteworthy segment of the vulnerable population that lacks information about the safety net initiative. It prompts further exploration into the reasons behind the lack of awareness, such as geographical constraints, communication gaps, or other barriers that may hinder certain individuals from accessing information about the program.

Addressing the needs of the (12)8% who are not aware becomes imperative to ensure the comprehensive coverage and impact of the safety net program. Strategies for enhancing awareness might include targeted outreach efforts, community engagement initiatives, or the utilization of various communication channels to reach individuals who might be on the fringes of information dissemination.

Figure 4.8: Awareness of Food Transfer Programme

The data on the awareness level of the Cash Transfer Programme in Turkana South Sub-County, within the broader context of safety net programs on vulnerable groups, reveals an exceptionally high level of awareness among the participants. According to the percentages provided, an overwhelming majority, accounting for (71)98% of the respondents, are aware of the Cash Transfer Programme.

This remarkable awareness level suggests a robust and effective communication and outreach strategy implemented to inform vulnerable groups about the existence and benefits of the Cash Transfer Programme. High awareness is a critical factor for the success of such safety net initiatives, ensuring that eligible individuals have knowledge of and access to the support available to them.

The (6)2% reported as not aware of the Cash Transfer Programme represents a very small fraction of the respondents. While this percentage is low, it signifies a group that may be missing out on the potential benefits of the safety net program due to a lack of information. Understanding the reasons behind this lack of awareness is crucial for further improving the outreach strategies, which could include targeted communication efforts, community engagement, or utilizing diverse channels to reach those who may have been inadvertently excluded from the awareness campaign.

Figure 4.9: Awareness of Cash Transfer Programme

The data on the proportion of food transfer beneficiaries within the context of safety net programs on livelihood among vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County reveals that a substantial majority, constituting (104)69% of the respondents, have received food transfers as part of the safety net initiatives. This high percentage suggests that a significant portion of the vulnerable population in the region has directly benefited from the food transfer program, indicating the successful implementation and reach of this specific aspect of the safety net initiative.

On the other hand, the (46)31% who did not receive food transfers represents a noteworthy segment of the respondents who have not directly accessed this particular aspect of the safety net program. Understanding the reasons behind this non-receipt is crucial for program evaluation and improvement. It could be influenced by various factors, including eligibility criteria, Members VMGs within the community, distribution mechanisms, Cash transfer beneficiaries, or logistical challenges that may have hindered the accessibility of food transfers to this specific group.

The interpretation of this data highlights both the positive impact and potential areas for improvement within the food transfer component of the safety net program. The high proportion of recipients underscores the program’s effectiveness in directly addressing immediate food-related needs of the vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County. The presence of individuals who did not receive food transfers emphasizes the importance of continuous evaluation and adaptation of safety net initiatives to ensure comprehensive coverage and equitable access for all eligible beneficiaries. This data provides valuable insights for policymakers and program implementers to refine and optimize the delivery of food transfers, thereby maximizing their positive impact on the livelihoods of vulnerable groups in the region.

Figure 4.10: Proportion of beneficiaries of Food Transfer Programme

The data on the proportion of institutions providing safety net programs for livelihood improvement among vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County provides insights into the distribution of various food transfer programs in the region. The Interviewed Beneficiaries named Food transfer programs and tagged them against the supporting and implementing agencies.

The World Food Programme (WFP) emerges as a prominent provider, with 52 instances reported. This indicates a significant presence of WFP in the region, underscoring its role in contributing to the safety net programs aimed at supporting vulnerable groups. The substantial frequency suggests that WFP is a key player in addressing food-related needs within the community.

World Vision Kenya (WVK) is also notable, with 8 instances reported. World Vision presence reflects a focused effort on providing safety nets to vulnerable groups, potentially emphasizing a multi-dimensional approach to livelihood improvement beyond just food transfer.

Several instances involve collaborations between different entities, such as TCG and WFP, (2 instances), WFP in conjunction with the national and county government (15 instances), and other variations. These collaborations signify a coordinated effort involving multiple stakeholders, showcasing the importance of partnerships and joint initiatives in delivering effective safety net programs.

Nawiri is mentioned individually, each with frequency of 30 instances. These Food Transfer implementing agency contribute to the overall diversity of safety net initiatives, potentially addressing specific needs or niches within the vulnerable population.

TCG has been mentioned 44 instances independently by the interviewed Households. That’s therefore shows the dedication of county government in enhancing there is food security among the most vulnerable Households in Turkana South sub-county. Beneficiaries also noted that School going children are being supported at the ECD Centers. They noted to have released more children to ECDEs centers due to access of food provided at the ECDEs center. For them they are indirectly benefiting from Mary’s meals and they therefore mentioned it for 22 instances during the research.

The National government were mentioned in 22 Instances and the beneficiaries noted that the Deputy County Commissioner and the chief’s and Assistant chiefs offices have been critical in assisting them in meeting their basic need especially food during Drought season.

The data indicates a decentralized landscape of safety net programs, with various entities contributing to the overall efforts in Turkana South Sub-County. The multiplicity of programs and collaborations suggests a comprehensive approach to address the multifaceted challenges faced by vulnerable groups, reflecting a concerted effort from both state and non-state actors.

Figure 4. 11: Names of the Food Transfer Programme

Effects of Food transfer program on Livelihood of Vulnerable groups in Turkana South sub-county

The data on the effect of the Food Transfer Programme on household food security and nutrition among vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County provides a compelling insight into the positive impact of the program. According to the percentages, a substantial majority, accounting for 87% (81) of the respondents, reported an improvement in food security and nutrition within their households.

This overwhelmingly positive response suggests that the Food Transfer Programme has been highly effective in addressing and mitigating food insecurity issues among vulnerable groups in the region. The reported improvement underscores the program’s success in providing essential food support, contributing to enhanced nutrition, and ultimately positively impacting the overall well-being of households.

While the majority experienced improved food security and nutrition, a small percentage (2%) (2) reported no significant change. While this figure is relatively low, it indicates that there are some households for whom the program may not have had a noticeable impact on food security or nutrition. Understanding the factors contributing to this lack of change is crucial for program evaluators and implementers to identify areas for potential enhancement or adaptation to ensure that the safety net initiative benefits all eligible households.

Additionally, a (10%) (10) Households expressed uncertainty about the program’s impact, stating they are not sure whether there was a positive change in food security and nutrition. This uncertainty might stem from various factors, including a lack of clear indicators or difficulties in assessing the program’s impact. Addressing this uncertainty is essential for building confidence in the program and ensuring that participants can meaningfully evaluate its effects.

Figure 4. 12: Effect of Food Transfer Programme on Household food security and nutrition

The data on the impact of the Food Transfer Programme on meeting basic food needs among vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County reveals a positive trend, with 70% (65) of respondents affirming that the program has indeed helped their households meet their basic food needs. This majority response underscores the critical role that the Food Transfer Programme plays in addressing immediate food requirements and enhancing food security within these vulnerable communities.

The affirmative “Yes” responses indicate that the program is making a significant and direct contribution to alleviating hunger and fulfilling essential nutritional needs. This positive impact is crucial for the well-being of households, providing them with the means to access and secure an adequate and consistent food supply.

A noteworthy aspect is the 25% (23) of respondents who reported that the Food Transfer Programme has helped their households partially meet their basic food needs. While not experiencing a complete resolution of food needs, this partial assistance still represents a meaningful contribution to improving food security for a quarter of the respondents. Understanding the factors contributing to partial success can inform program adjustments, ensuring a more targeted and effective approach to address the specific challenges faced by this subgroup.

On the other hand, the 5% (5) of respondents who indicated that the program has not helped their households meet basic food needs suggests a minority facing challenges or limitations in fully benefiting from the Food Transfer Programme. Exploring the reasons behind this negative response is crucial for identifying potential gaps or barriers that may need to be addressed, ensuring that the safety net initiative is inclusive and responsive to the diverse needs of the vulnerable population.

Figure 4.13: The proportion of Food Transfers that has helped household meet its basic food needs

The data on the use of the Food Transfer Programme among vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County provides insights into the diverse ways in which the received food support is utilized within households. The reported categories highlight different strategies employed by beneficiaries to address both immediate and future food needs.

A significant portion, 56 % (52), reported consuming the transferred food for immediate needs. This suggests that a majority of households rely on the program to meet their immediate nutritional requirements, emphasizing the essential role of the Food Transfer Programme in addressing urgent food security needs among vulnerable groups.

An additional 10% (9) reported consuming the food for immediate needs and sharing it with other household members. This dual usage pattern reflects a sense of communal support within households, with individuals not only benefiting individually but also contributing to the collective well-being of their family members. This cooperative approach aligns with the community-based nature of safety net programs.

A notable 16% (15) mentioned sharing the received food exclusively with other household members. This distribution approach indicates a focus on ensuring that the entire household, beyond the recipient, benefits from the food transfer. This practice may contribute to fostering a sense of solidarity and equitable access to the program’s benefits within the household.

Another 13% (12) reported a more comprehensive approach, involving consuming the food for immediate needs, preserving some for future use, and sharing with other household members. This multi-faceted strategy reflects a forward-thinking approach where beneficiaries balance immediate consumption with future planning, possibly anticipating the need for sustained food security over time.

A smaller percentage, 5% (5), reported consuming the food for immediate needs, preserving some for future use but not sharing with other household members. This approach suggests a focus on individual preservation and future planning, possibly driven by considerations of longer-term food security and self-sufficiency.

Figure 4.14: Use of Food Transfer received

The data on the empowerment of vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County through the Food Transfer Program to make better decisions regarding household food consumption reveals a predominantly positive impact. According to the percentages, a significant majority, comprising 71% (66) of the respondents, affirmed that the program has indeed empowered them to make better decisions in managing their household’s food consumption.

The affirmative “Yes” responses suggest that the Food Transfer Program has played a vital role in enhancing the decision-making capabilities of beneficiaries concerning food consumption. This empowerment could stem from various aspects of the program, including education on nutrition, provision of diverse food options, or the promotion of sustainable and healthier food choices. The positive response reflects a holistic impact beyond immediate food provision, contributing to the overall well-being and agency of vulnerable households.

A smaller percentage, 21%, reported partial empowerment in making better decisions regarding household food consumption. This nuanced response indicates that while the program has had a positive influence, there may be specific areas or aspects where further support or information is needed. Identifying the factors contributing to partial empowerment can guide program enhancements to ensure a more comprehensive impact on decision-making within households.

On the other hand, the 8% who responded “No” suggests a minority who may not have experienced empowerment through the Food Transfer Program in terms of making improved decisions about food consumption. Exploring the reasons behind this negative response is crucial for program evaluators to understand potential barriers or challenges faced by this group, helping to refine and tailor the program for broader effectiveness

Figure 4.15: Has the Food Transfer program empowered you to make better decisions regarding your household’s food consumption?

Effects of Cash transfer program on Livelihood of Vulnerable groups in Turkana South sub-county

The data on the effect of the Cash Transfer Programme on household food security and nutrition among vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County provides a positive insight on the importance of cash transfers programming on the Wellbeing vulnerable communities and Livelihoods of the people of Turkana south Sub-county. Based on the statistical output of the research, majority of the households interviewed reported that there is improvement in food security and nutrition within their households. The response denoted that

Cash Transfer Programmes have been effective in addressing and mitigating food insecurity issues among vulnerable groups in the region.

While the majority experienced improved food security and nutrition, a small percentage (3) (3%) reported no significant change. While this figure is relatively low, it indicates that there are some households for whom the program may not have had a noticeable impact on food security or nutrition. Understanding the factors contributing to this lack of change is crucial for program evaluators and implementers to identify areas for potential enhancement or adaptation to ensure that the safety net initiative benefits all eligible households.

Additionally, a minimal percentage (2) (1%) expressed uncertainty about the program’s impact, stating they are not sure whether there was a positive change in food security and nutrition. This uncertainty might stem from various factors, including a lack of clear indicators or difficulties in assessing the program’s impact. Addressing this uncertainty is essential for building confidence in the program and ensuring that participants can meaningfully evaluate its effects.

Figure 4.16: Has Cash Transfer helped your Household in Meeting its Basic needs

100 % of the beneficiaries receiving cash transfer program, consider it as one of the main source of income because it feeds into and supports their income generating activities. Turkana south currently have market days in Napusumoru and Nakaalei Sub-locations thanks to the Cash transfer programs. The cash was subsequently used in the following ways: Purchase food for the family (87%)(50), education (50%)(29) health (63%)(36), paid debts (35%)(20), Purchase of Shoats (90%)(51), Shared with the neighbors (15%)(9), Purchase of farming tools (10%)(6), small Home kiosks (21%)(20) and savings (10%)(6). The Cash transfer program targeted the appropriate vulnerable households, mainly vulnerable and no sustainable livelihoods.50 % (28) of the interviewed Households in Kainuk, Kakongu and Katilu sub-locations stated to have had livestock as the main source of their livelihoods, however due to cattle rustling and Banditry, along the Turkwel riverine, they lost the main providers and also their source of livelihoods.

The Higher (87%) (50) percentage of the beneficiaries used the cash received in purchase of Household food. This therefore shows that the immediate need of the vulnerable Households is food. Through this unconditional Cash transfer a Household is given autonomy and purchase power of any food item that the Household need. This therefore enhances diversification of Households in terms what it wants to purchase. Most of the interviewed Households purchased maize (87%)(50), beans (87%)(50),Cooking oil (68%)(39), vegetables (49%)(28), Sugar (54%)(31), Tea Leave (75%)(43) and Rice (42%)(24).This therefore shows that vulnerable Households need to be supported so that they can be more resilient to drought and economic shocks.

Figure 4.17: Food Items Purchased by Household Receiving cash transfer

The percentage of the money spent on health in this study, indicates that the Kenyan government still has a challenge in providing affordable health services to its citizenry. The 63 % (36) Households that spent the money on access of health services further reinforces the positive effects of Cash transfer in access of medical services for the Household. When the overall health of a community improves, it results in better dietary habits and more efficient utilization of food resources. Consequently, this contributes to enhanced food security by minimizing wastage due to excessive consumption for indulgence.

Cash transfers also played an important role in education. Expenses used in support of education included school fees, uniforms, Transport and books. The 50 % of beneficiaries spending the cash transfer on education shows that enrollment and attendance level have increased as attributed to the payment of fees and other necessary education materials by the Households members. Though Majority of the respondents in this study were illiterate but the effort they are taking with the amount of money they receive on monthly basis of 2000kshs to ensure that more of their children go to schools, proofs that the vulnerable groups are indeed futuristic.

35 % translating to 20 interviewed Households reported to have used the money in payment of Debts incurred in the previous month. This therefore shows that the Household has a power to incur debts since they are certain that within the Month, they will be receiving money from the government. This therefore shows that Households have ability to borrow and access credit from the traders because of the assurance they have of getting money every month.

Turkana South dominant livelihood is Pastoralism and 90 % of the interviewed Households reported to have used the money in purchase of shoats. Cash transfer impacts on livelihoods as a complementary source of income and investment. This happens Through investment in small businesses, Livestock (Productive asset) and purchase of farming inputs. That significant percentage shows that the Households are indeed enhancing and supporting their livelihood through purchase of animals, that will be sold later after fattening so as to support the family in future expenditures. Apart from that this livelihood is risky as the area is prevalent to banditry and cattle rustling.

A proportion of the interviewed Household, which translates to 15% (9) reported that they shared the money with neighbors, friends or relatives. This therefore shows that some of non-beneficiaries survive from those receiving the payment from the state and non-state actors. Along the Turkwel riverine, 10 % of the interviewed Households reported that used the money in payment of farming tools. This therefore shows that Agricultural practices along the riverine is supported by cash transfer as one of the livelihoods that will enhance food security and nutrition.

A significant group also reported that they are using the money in sustaining their small businesses at a Household level. This 21 percent therefore informs that there is a potential in enhancing future sustainability of a household through change of policy in cash transfer programming. If indeed the government changes its policy from unconditional to conditional, or provide alternative income source i.e Business grants for the targeted vulnerable groups, then Households will have a potential to survive in future without external support of either cash, food or hybrid.in addition to preventing the loss of assets during severe food shortages, 10 %(6) of the interviewed Households reported that they are saving some of the money in groups for future use. These savings primarily supported productive endeavors such as acquiring shoats when prices fell down, purchase of food, Household main assets and support of the education.

Figure 4.18: Use of Cash transfer

Comparison between the Cash transfers and Food transfers

The data on the perceived effectiveness of different types of transfers (cash or food) in meeting the overall needs of vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County provides valuable insights into beneficiary preferences and opinions. The percentages indicate that there is a relatively balanced perspective among respondents.

A notable 41% of respondents believe that cash transfers are more effective in meeting the overall needs of their households. This viewpoint suggests that individuals in this group value the flexibility and autonomy that cash transfers provide, enabling them to make choices based on their specific priorities and circumstances. Cash transfers may empower households to address a broader spectrum of needs beyond immediate food requirements.

On the other hand, 39% of respondents believe that food transfers are more effective. This perspective underscores the significance of in-kind support, particularly when it comes to ensuring access to essential food items. Food transfers can directly contribute to addressing immediate nutritional needs, offering a tangible and targeted approach to improving household food security.

A substantial 20% of respondents indicated that both cash and food transfers are equally effective. This response reflects a recognition of the complementary nature of both types of transfers, acknowledging that each has its strengths and benefits. This perspective aligns with the idea that a combination of cash and food transfers may offer a well-rounded and comprehensive approach to meeting the diverse needs of vulnerable households.

Notably, there are no respondents expressing uncertainty (“Not sure”) about which type of transfer is more effective. This lack of uncertainty suggests that the respondents have clear opinions and experiences regarding the effectiveness of cash and food transfers, indicating a level of awareness and engagement with the assistance provided.

Figure 4.19: which type of transfer (cash or food) is more effective in meeting the overall need of your household

The data on the perceived effectiveness of different types of transfers, specifically cash or food, in meeting the overall needs of vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County, reflects a balanced perspective among respondents. The percentages reveal that opinions are divided among cash transfers, food transfers, and a notable percentage expressing flexibility in their preference.

A significant portion, 41% of respondents, believes that cash transfers are more effective in meeting the overall needs of their households. This viewpoint suggests a recognition of the flexibility and adaptability that cash transfers afford, allowing beneficiaries to allocate resources according to their specific priorities and immediate requirements. Cash transfers are often appreciated for empowering individuals to make decisions that best suit their unique circumstances.

Similarly, 39% of respondents indicated that food transfers are more effective. This perspective underscores the importance placed on receiving tangible food items to directly address immediate nutritional needs. Food transfers are seen as a targeted and straightforward approach to improving household food security, providing essential items that contribute to the overall well-being of vulnerable households.

A noteworthy 20% of respondents expressed that either type of transfer, be it cash or food, is fine. This response indicates a level of flexibility and open-mindedness among the beneficiary population, suggesting that they may appreciate the benefits of both approaches. This acknowledgment of the effectiveness of either transfer type underscores the diversity of needs and preferences within the community.

Importantly, the absence of respondents expressing uncertainty (“Not sure”) about the effectiveness of either type of transfer suggests a clear and informed perspective among the surveyed individuals. This clarity can be seen as a positive indication of the community’s awareness and engagement with the assistance provided, allowing for a more informed decision-making process.

Figure 4.20: In comparison to food transfer, do you believe that cash transfers have greater impact on improving your household’s economic well-being?

The data on the preferences of vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County regarding future transfers, specifically between cash and food, reveals a balanced distribution of opinions among respondents. The percentages indicate that individuals have diverse preferences when considering the type of assistance, they would like to receive in the future.

A slight plurality of 46% expressed a preference for receiving food transfers. This preference underscores the perceived importance of tangible food items, suggesting that a significant portion of the community values the direct impact that in-kind food assistance can have on meeting immediate nutritional needs. Food transfers are often regarded as a practical and targeted approach to addressing food security concerns.

Close behind, 44% of respondents indicated a preference for cash transfers. This preference highlights an appreciation for the flexibility and autonomy that cash transfers provide, allowing beneficiaries to make decisions based on their unique circumstances and priorities. Cash transfers empower individuals to allocate resources according to their household’s specific needs, offering a more personalized approach to assistance.

A smaller yet significant 9% expressed a partial preference, suggesting that individuals may see value in both cash and food transfers or that their preference depends on particular circumstances. This nuanced response reflects the diversity of needs within the community and an openness to various forms of assistance.

Importantly, only 1% of respondents expressed uncertainty (“Not sure”) about their future preferences. This low percentage suggests that individuals have a clear understanding of their preferences when considering the type of assistance, they would like to receive, reflecting a level of informed decision-making within the community.

Figure 4.21: If given a choice, which type of transfer (cash or food) would you prefer to receive in future?

The data provides insights into the sources or channels through which information about safety net programs is disseminated among vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County. These channels include Welfare Committees (BWC), neighbors, friends, other beneficiaries, local administration, Short Message Service (SMS), and Chiefs Baraza, with various instances of combinations.

Local administration emerges as a significant source, mentioned in 23 instances. This suggests that local government structures play a crucial role in communicating information about safety net programs to the vulnerable communities. The involvement of local administration signifies a direct and authoritative channel through which information is conveyed, possibly contributing to the credibility and effectiveness of the communication.

Welfare Committees (BWC) are mentioned in 15 instances, indicating their active involvement in disseminating information. Welfare Committees often serve as community-based organizations that play a vital role in facilitating communication and coordination between program implementers and beneficiaries. Their presence in the data highlights the importance of community-driven initiatives in information dissemination.

Neighbors, friends, and other beneficiaries collectively appear in 11 instances, suggesting that informal social networks play a role in sharing information. This decentralized approach reflects the significance of peer-to-peer communication in spreading awareness about safety net programs. Individuals within the community, who have firsthand experience with the programs, serve as valuable messengers.

Combinations of channels, such as SMS, Chiefs Baraza, and local administration, showcase the diverse and collaborative nature of information dissemination. These combinations indicate a multi-faceted strategy involving both traditional and modern communication methods, potentially reaching a wider audience with varying preferences for receiving information.

The data also includes instances where only one or two sources are mentioned, emphasizing the varied communication landscape within the community. Whether through formal channels like local administration or community-driven initiatives like Welfare Committees, the data underscores the importance of a multi-pronged and contextually relevant approach to information dissemination.

Figure 4.22: How do you get the information on access of safety net programs (Cash and food)?

The data on travel time to the food distribution point among vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County provides crucial understanding into the accessibility and logistical considerations related to accessing essential food support. The percentages reveal a distribution of travel times, shedding light on the experiences of beneficiaries in reaching these distribution points.

An overwhelming 82% (123) of respondents reported a travel time below 1 hour to reach the food distribution point and pay points. This majority indicates that a significant portion of the vulnerable groups has relatively quick and convenient access to the distribution and pay points. A travel time of less than one hour suggests that these distribution points are closer and strategically located thus enabling beneficiaries to access essential food support with minimal time and effort.

A smaller yet noteworthy percentage, 10% (15), reported a travel time between 1 and 2 hours. This group represents individuals who need to allocate a somewhat longer period for travel to reach the distribution or pay point. While this duration is still within a manageable range, it signifies a moderate level of effort required to access the food distribution, potentially influencing the overall accessibility and convenience of the program.

Another 8% (12) of respondents reported a travel time above 2 hours to reach the food distribution point. This minority faces a more significant challenge in terms of time and effort required for travel. Longer travel times may impact the frequency of visits and could pose logistical challenges, particularly for individuals who are elderly, disabled, or have other mobility constraints.

Figure 4.23: travel time to the food distribution and pay point

The data on the means of travel used by vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County to reach the food distribution site provides valuable insights into the transportation dynamics and challenges faced by beneficiaries in accessing essential food support. The percentages indicate the predominant modes of travel and shed light on the community’s reliance on different transportation options.

An overwhelming 97% of respondents reported using walking as the primary means of travel to reach the food distribution site. This high percentage underscores the prevalence of walking as the most accessible and widely used mode of transportation by the vulnerable groups. The reliance on walking suggests that the distribution sites are often located within a reasonable distance from the beneficiaries’ residences, allowing them to reach these points on foot.

A small percentage, 3%, reported using motorcycles as a means of travel. This minority may include individuals who reside farther away from the distribution points or face physical challenges that make walking impractical. The use of motorcycles, though limited, indicates a need for alternative transportation options to accommodate those with greater travel distances or mobility constraints.

The absence of responses for other means of travel, such as animal, bicycle, car, or public service, suggests that these modes of transportation are not commonly used among the surveyed vulnerable groups to access food distribution sites. The lack of utilization of these means could be attributed to factors such as infrastructure limitations, economic constraints, or the suitability of walking as the most practical option given the local context.

Figure 4.24: means of travel that you use to get to the food distribution site

The data on the means of travel used by Cash transfer beneficiaries in Turkana South Sub-County to reach the pay points was predominantly walking to a pay point. 93% (53) of respondents reported to have walked to the pay point to access the payment they received from HSNP or Inua jamii cash transfers. This high percentage underscores the distance to the pay point as less than 10 kms as underscored in the charter of rights agreement between the Banks, NDMA and World Bank. The other means of transport used by cash transfer beneficiaries was motorbikes. Based on the research 7% (4) used this means to access the pay point. Based on the respondent, the beneficiaries have been by old age and thus had to use that means to get paid. Other means that includes animals, public transport and bicycles are not used in accessing the pay point.

Figure 4.25: means of travel that you used to access the pay point

Comparative Analysis of Cash transfers and Food Transfers

In humanitarian world, the debate on cash transfers versus food transfers has been persisted for decades and its never ending. The recent trend towards favoring cash transfers has not only intensified this debate but has also prompted questions regarding the rationale behind the shift and its consequential impacts.

This comparative analysis seeks to delve into the intricacies of cash transfers versus food transfers, examining their respective strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness in the livelihoods of vulnerable groups. By dissecting empirical evidence, policy frameworks, and practical outcomes, this study endeavors to illuminate the underlying dynamics driving the transition from traditional food-based aid to cash-based interventions. Moreover, it endeavors to assess whether such a shift indeed translates into tangible improvements in the well-being and resilience of vulnerable populations.

Through a rigorous examination of case studies, scholarly research, and field experiences, this analysis aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding humanitarian aid strategies. By adopting a holistic perspective, it seeks to provide stakeholders, policymakers, and practitioners with valuable insights to inform evidence-based decision-making and foster greater efficacy in addressing the complex needs of communities affected by crises.

In navigating the nuances of cash transfers and food transfers, this study endeavors to unravel the complexities inherent in humanitarian assistance programs, ultimately striving towards the realization of sustainable solutions that uphold the dignity and agency of those in need.

Similarities of Cash transfer and Food Transfers

Both cash and food transfer programs aim to alleviate food insecurity and poverty among vulnerable populations by providing direct aid, either as money or food. Both programs follow similar steps to target beneficiaries: needs assessment, registration, targeting, and validation to ensure aid reaches those in need. Empirical evidence shows both types of aid improve food security, nutrition, access to essentials, and resilience against economic and environmental shocks. They also empower recipients by giving them more control over resources, enhancing dignity and self-reliance. In Turkana South, beneficiaries mainly walk to access aid, indicating no travel costs and short distances to distribution points. Feedback shows these points are conveniently located within 0-15 kilometers. Cash and food transfer programs can complement each other within social protection strategies, optimizing humanitarian interventions. This analysis highlights their shared goals, procedures, positive impacts, and complementary roles, guiding better decision-making for sustainable and dignified support.

Differences between Cash Transfers and Food Transfers

Cash and food transfers differ significantly. Cash transfers are more cost-effective as they avoid expenses related to handling food. They also offer recipients more freedom to address their needs. In contrast, food transfers come with higher logistical costs and less flexibility. Research in Turkana South shows mixed preferences: 45% favor food transfers, 44% prefer cash, 9% like both, and 2% are undecided, slightly favoring food.

Food transfers incur transportation costs, while cash transfers do not, making the latter quicker to implement. However, cash transfers can be affected by fluctuating market prices, whereas food transfer values remain stable. Both methods serve different purposes: cash transfers support long-term resilience and economic growth, while food transfers address immediate hunger. Policymakers need to understand these distinctions to design effective aid strategies.

Table 4.26: Differences between Cash transfers and Food Transfer programs.

RECOMMENDATION

Aligning with Vision 2030, policy makers should reflect the national development goals of transforming Kenya into a middle-income country with a high quality of life for all citizens. Safety net programs can be designed to not only alleviate immediate poverty but also contribute to the broader economic transformation of Turkana South. Vision 2030 emphasizes economic diversification, sustainable development, and social equity, and safety nets should be integrated into strategies that promote these objectives.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a global agenda adopted by Kenya, provide a framework for addressing poverty, hunger, health, education, gender equality, and other dimensions of well-being. Policy makers should align with specific SDGs, such as Goal 1 (No Poverty), Goal 2 (Zero Hunger), Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and Goal 10 (Reduced Inequalities). This alignment ensures that safety net programs contribute directly to achieving internationally agreed-upon targets while addressing local priorities.

Moreover, policy recommendations should emphasize the importance of participatory governance and community involvement in the design, implementation, and evaluation of safety net programs. This approach resonates with the constitutional principles of public participation and devolution of power. Local communities in Turkana South should be empowered to actively participate in decision-making processes, ensuring that safety net programs are contextually relevant and responsive to the unique needs of the region.

Additionally, the policy makers should promote sustainable and environmentally conscious interventions, considering the arid nature of Turkana South. Integrating environmental sustainability aligns with the SDGs, particularly Goal 13 (Climate Action) and Goal 15 (Life on Land). Ensuring that safety net programs do not adversely impact natural resources but contribute to environmental conservation enhances the long-term resilience of vulnerable communities.

REFERENCES

1. Arslan, A., & Taylor, J. E. (2009). Farmers’ subjective valuation of subsistence crops: The case of traditional maize in Mexico. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(4), 956-972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2009.01320.x
2. Baird, S., McIntosh, C., & Özler, B. (2014). Cash or condition? Evidence from a cash transfer experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1455-1492. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju032
3. Barrientos, A., & Villa, J. M. (2013). Women, social assistance and empowerment in low- and middle-income countries. Journal of Social Policy, 42(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279412000993
4. Bassett, L., Giannozzi, S., Pop, L., & Ringold, D. (2015). Social assistance and labor market programs in eastern Europe and central Asia: A synthesis of findings from the World Bank’s regional study. World Bank Publications.
5. Bastagli, F., Hagen-Zanker, J., Harman, L., Barca, V., Sturge, G., & Schmidt, T. (2016). Cash transfers: What does the evidence say? ODI. https://odi.org/en/publications/cash-transfers-what-does-the-evidence-say/
6. Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Institute of Development Studies.
7. Covarrubias, K., Davis, B., & Winters, P. (2012). From protection to production: Productive impacts of the Malawi social cash transfer scheme. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4(1), 50-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2012.655893
8. Davis, B., Handa, S., Hypher, N., Rossi, N. W., Winters, P., & Yablonski, J. (2019). From evidence to action: The story of cash transfers and impact evaluation in sub-Saharan Africa. Oxford University Press.
9. Devereux, S., & Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2004). Transformative social protection. IDS Working Paper 232. Institute of Development Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2004.tb00101.x
10. Devereux, S., & Tibbo, K. (2011). Social protection for pastoralists: Just give them cash? Development Policy Review, 29(3), 261-287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2011.00535.x
11. Devereux, S., Masset, E., Sabates-Wheeler, R., Samson, M., Rivas, A., & te Lintelo, D. (2015). Evaluating the targeting effectiveness of social transfers: A literature review. IDS Working Paper 460. Institute of Development Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2015.00460.x
12. Drimie, S., & Eicher, T. (2017). Comparative lessons from the African food security urban network. African Affairs, 116(462), 444-455. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adx020
13. Esser, F., & Vliegenthart, R. (2017). Comparative research methods. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods (pp. 1-22). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0035
14. Fenn, B., Nisbett, N., Botha, R., & Duffield, A. (2019). Cash transfers and child nutrition: What we know and what we need to know. The Lancet Global Health, 7(10), e1308-e1309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30355-5
15. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2008). An introduction to the basic concepts of food security. FAO Food Security Programme.
16. Handa, S., Park, M., Osei Darko, R., Osei-Akoto, I., Davis, B., & Daidone, S. (2018). Livelihood empowerment against poverty program impacts. Development Policy Review, 36, O643-O662. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12302
17. Haushofer, J., & Shapiro, J. (2016). The short-term impact of unconditional cash transfers to the poor: Evidence from Kenya. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4), 1973-2042. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw025
18. Heltberg, R., Hossain, N., & Reva, A. (2016). Can food transfers improve the nutritional status of the vulnerable poor in Bangladesh? Development Policy Review, 34(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12152
19. Kareithi, J. N. (2014). Drought and famine management strategies in Turkana district, Kenya. Journal of Arid Environments, 113, 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.09.010
20. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS). (2021). Kenya Poverty Report. KNBS.
21. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS). (2023). Kenya Health Demographic Survey (KDHS). KNBS.
22. LaFave, D., & Thomas, D. (2016). Farms, families, and markets: New evidence on completeness of markets in agricultural settings. Econometrica, 84(5), 1917-1960. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA12322
23. Maione, J. (2020). Resilience in the face of climate change: Lessons from Kenya’s ASALs. Climate and Development, 12(6), 538-548. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1761571
24. Mano, R., de Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (2018). Cash transfers, food security, and poverty reduction in Zimbabwe. World Development, 104, 66-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.019
25. Maxwell, D., Vaitla, B., & Coates, J. (2015). How do different indicators of household food security compare? Empirical evidence from Tigray. Food Policy, 47, 107-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.11.002
26. Mitra, S., Béné, C., McGregor, J. A., & Cannon, T. (2022). Food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence and drivers. World Development, 149, 105711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105711
27. National Drought Management Authority (NDMA). (2023). Drought and food security situation report. NDMA.
28. Pell, L. G., Diwakar, V., & Shepherd, A. (2016). The impact of food transfers for vulnerable populations: A systematic review of evidence. Food Policy, 60, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.03.003
29. Sabates-Wheeler, R., & Devereux, S. (2010). Cash transfers and high food prices: Explaining outcomes on Ethiopia’s productive safety net programme. Food Policy, 35(4), 274-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.01.001
30. Shibia, M. (2023). The impact of droughts on food security in arid and semi-arid lands in Kenya. Journal of Environmental Management, 293, 112927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112927