世界发展银行-Monitoring-COVID-19-Impacts-on-Households-in-Ethiopia,-Report-No.-7---Results-from-Six-Rounds-of-High-Frequency-Household-Phone-Surveys_6页_326kb

Summary of Monitoring COVID-19 Impacts on Households in Ethiopia

Core Content

This document summarizes the findings from the first six rounds of the High-Frequency Phone Survey of Households (HFPS-HH) in Ethiopia, conducted between April and September 2020. The survey aims to monitor the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on households and support evidence-based policy responses. It is based on a representative sample of households with access to a working phone, drawn from the 2019 Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey (ESS). The survey collects data on behavior changes, access to basic needs, employment dynamics, income sources, and assistance received.

Main Findings

Behavior in Response to the Pandemic

• Awareness of Mitigation Measures: Most respondents were aware of ways to avoid infections and curb the spread of the virus.
• Behavior Changes: Initially, most respondents practiced frequent handwashing, avoided handshakes and physical greetings, and avoided gatherings. However, adherence to these behaviors declined over time.
  • In late April/early May, 98% washed hands frequently, 96% avoided handshakes, and 83% avoided gatherings.
  • By September, these figures dropped to 43% avoiding gatherings, 73% avoiding handshakes, and a slight decline in handwashing frequency.
• Wearing Face Masks: The proportion of respondents wearing face masks increased from 53% to 65% over the same period.
• Concerns: Worry about falling ill with the virus and its financial impact decreased over time.
  • In June, 71% were worried about illness; by September, only 56% were.
  • In June, 60% saw the pandemic as a financial threat; by September, this dropped to 44%.

Testing and Vaccination Willingness

• Testing Willingness: If testing were free, about 86% of respondents said they would definitely get tested, and 12% would likely get tested.
  • Urban respondents were more likely to get tested than rural ones.
• Vaccination Willingness: 98% of respondents expressed openness to vaccination if an approved vaccine were available at no cost.
  • No significant difference was found between urban and rural respondents.

Access to Basic Needs

• Food and Medicine Access: Most households were able to buy the basic items they needed.
  • Teff: One-third of households reported difficulty in buying enough teff.
  • Medicines: The proportion of households able to buy needed medicines increased from 71% to 95%.
• Reasons for Inability to Buy: The main reasons cited were reduced income and higher prices.
  • In early April, higher prices were the primary concern.
  • By September, reduced income became the dominant reason.

Income Loss and Coping Strategies

• Income Reduction: The proportion of households experiencing income reduction or total loss declined over time.
  • Non-farm businesses: Experienced the highest reduction in income.
  • Remittances: Suffered significant drops initially but recovered quickly.
• Coping Strategies: Households used various strategies to cope with income loss, including selling assets, borrowing money, and receiving help from friends and relatives.
  • Reduction in Consumption: Initially low, it increased later as other coping mechanisms were exhausted.
  • By September, consumption levels had returned to pre-pandemic levels.

Employment Dynamics

• Job Loss: At the start of the pandemic, 8% of respondents had lost their jobs, with urban areas more affected (20%) than rural (3%).
• Employment Recovery: By September, employment rates were similar to pre-pandemic levels.
• Job Type Shift: Respondents moved from more stable employment (government, private sector) to more vulnerable forms such as self-employment, casual work, and family work.
• Non-farm Businesses: Declined from 23% in April to 19% in September.

Assistance and Support

• Assistance Received: Only 8% of households received any form of assistance at the start of the pandemic, and this proportion decreased over time.
• Types of Assistance: Free food was the most common form of assistance, with government being the primary provider.
• Assistance Sources: Government assistance remained the most important source, though NGO and religious organization support fluctuated.

Key Information

• The survey tracks the same households over 12 months, with interviews conducted every three to four weeks.
• The sample is biased toward households with phone access, which is less common in rural areas (40%) compared to urban areas (90%).
• The survey provides real-time data to monitor the pandemic's impact and inform policy decisions.
• Data is available for download at https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/ethiopia/brief/phone-survey-data-monitoring-covid-19-impact-on-firms-and-households-in-ethiopia.

Survey Methodology

• The HFPS-HH sample is a subsample of the ESS, focusing on households with phone access.
• The survey includes both urban and rural areas across all regions of Ethiopia.
• Respondents are typically the household head, with alternative respondents selected if the head could not be reached.
• The survey collected data from 3,249 households in the first round, with consistent follow-up in subsequent rounds.

Conclusion

The HFPS-HH provides critical insights into the evolving impact of the pandemic on Ethiopian households. While initial concerns about health and financial stability were high, they declined over time. However, employment patterns shifted toward more vulnerable types, and access to basic needs remained a challenge for many, especially due to income constraints. The survey highlights the importance of continued monitoring and the need for targeted support to the most affected groups.