Does Social protection improve female-headed households’ food security in Ebinat district, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the study area.

Figure 2. Household food shortage experience.

Figure 3. Coping strategy for food insecurity.

Table 1. Logistic regression result for propensity score estimation

PSNP	Coef.	MEF (dy/dx)
Spouse status	0.705	−0.084
age	0.143	0.04*(0.01)
Education level	−2.172	−0.4185
Farm experience	−0.067	−0.0002
Agricultural training	2.38	0.53*(0.1)
Petty trade	0.29	0.07(0.45)
Land size	−0.93	−0.23**(0.14)
Extension service	−0.42	−0.1(0.18)
Distance from health center	−0.07	−0.02(0.11)
Saving experience	1.62	0.38*(0.1)
Distance from city center	0.1	0.02**(0.01)
Dependency ratio	−0.42	−0.11**(0.05)
Per-capita income (PCI)	0.004	0.004**(0.0)
_cons	−6.147
Number of observations	227
LR chi2(13)	135.61
Prob > chi2	0
Pseudo R2	0.4309
Log likelihood	−89.535869

Remark: ++ indicates dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1; and *, and ** indicates significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively

Figure 4. Kernel density distribution of propensity scores.

Table 2. Distribution of estimated propensity scores

Groups	Obs.	Mean	Sta.dev.	Min	Max	Off support
All sample	216	0.5022026	0.3534908	0.001778	0.9999067	30
Treated	110	0.7549754	0.2450988	0.0316412	0.9999067	17
Control	106	0.2471929	0.2467538	0.001778	0.9773354	13

Table 3. Impacts of Program Safety Net Program on beneficiary households

Outcome variables	Treated	Controls	Difference	S.E^B	T-value
KCal	2027.01	1685.86	341.15	24	14.21
RCSI	31.26	37.79	−6.52	2.2	−2.98

^BStandards for bootstrapped error which is obtained after 100 replications.