Basic Needs

You want a simple, cross-cutting means of gauging the extent to which overarching basic needs are being met, based on recipient perceptions (basic needs indicator). You would also like a quantifiable means to better understand which needs are not being met, and the reasons for this, particularly in relation to household spending power and market functionality (follow up questions). You would like to improve your understanding of the impact of the MPC on household expenditures and what it allows them to buy, or do, as compared to before they received the assistance (follow up questions)

How to Collect the Data

• The box below includes a summary of the questions. See Annex 2 for a complete example of the questionnaire, including response category lists (e.g., types of basic need), and guidance notes for enumerators. This is an example, rather than a standardized questionnaire, although it’s recommended that question 1 (basic needs indicator) uses the listed standard set of response options (all, most, etc.). However, the lists of categories in 2a., 2b., and 2.c should be reviewed and tailored to the intervention and response context.
• Question 2c: If this question is being asked as part of a household survey, it makes sense to generate a list of response categories, as in this example, to better facilitate a quantified analysis of numbers. However, this question could also be asked in a focus group discussion format, on a free response basis, and with the scope to further explore some of the details of how the cash has been used.

How to Use the Data

Basic Needs Indicator

• To calculate the indicator, count the number of respondents per response category (all / most / half / some / none), and calculate each category as a percentage of the total number of respondents. For example, if there were 100 respondents and 30 answered ‘all’, and 25 answered most, the percentage who report being able to meet all their basic needs would be 30%, and the percentage who can meet most of their basic needs is 25%, and so on for each of the response categories.
• While the indicator is ostensibly focused on those who report being able to meet all their needs, tracking all response categories is equally valuable. Analysing the distribution of responses across the scale over time informs understanding of whether the MPC is helping facilitate improvements in meeting basic needs, even where gaps remain. Similarly, it can highlight if expected improvements aren’t occurring, and the extent of the gaps - for example if a significant percentage aren’t in upper categories (all, most) of the scale.

Follow-up Questions

• (2.a) Which basic needs are households currently unable to fulfil?
  • Calculate the percentage of respondents that report being unable to meet each basic need – i.e., those needs that were selected from the list. You can group and categorize needs reported under the ‘other- specify’ option to allow for a more quantified analysis, although this may only be relevant if you observe the same need(s) reported by multiple households (this also applies for questions 2.b and 2.c).
  • Those needs which are reported by a relatively higher percentage of households may constitute significant gaps that require follow-up. You might also analyse results against the MEB, for example to see if there are needs being reported as unmet which aren’t covered in the MEB, and/or they are covered in the MEB calculations but are nonetheless reported as a significant unmet need. Or, you might look at whether people are spending on the needs they report as not being met.
• (2.b.) Reasons why needs cannot be met?
  • For each unmet need, calculate the percentage who reported being unable to meet it per response option (financial reasons, etc.).
  • Understanding of why needs aren’t being met may be most relevant when analysed at the level of each need, on the basis these may vary, for example due to issues of availability, or prioritization. Cross comparison between needs may also be of interest, particularly if this indicates variations in the reasons for being unable to meet them. It might be anticipated that MPC would reduce the percentage of people reporting ‘financial reasons’ for being unable to meet a need comparative to the baseline, although there are external factors that could influence this.
  • You could also calculate the aggregate percentage of reasons across all reported unmet needs. This may be of more limited use, particularly if you’re seeing notable variations between individual needs, although there could be value in analysing overall changes across all needs, for example in terms of financial capacity to meet needs.
• (2.c) What are the most important things that the cash has enabled households to do or buy?
  • This question is about better understanding the main impacts the cash has had, with the aim that households report the most important aspects, rather than listing everything the cash has contributed to.
  • If this question has been included in household surveys with a list of categories, for each category calculate the percentage of respondents who reported it as an important area of impact.
  • Cross checking the results of this question with 2.a, can show if they are well aligned, or if there are any apparent contradictions – for example a need that’s being commonly reported as both a gap in 2.a, and a key area of positive impact in 2.c.
  • Asking this question in a focus group discussion can enable more qualitative and in-depth exploration of how the cash is being used. You could also choose to use participatory methods to get an approximate ranking or weighting of the perceived importance of the various uses/impacts of the cash assistance.