Influences of Livelihood Support on Food Insecurity among Tanzania’s Productive Social Safety Net Beneficiary Households Morogoro Municipal-Tanzania
This study evaluates the impact of Tanzania's PSSN livelihood support on household food insecurity in Morogoro using Propensity Score Matching and finds that while supported households exhibited slightly lower food insecurity scores, the effect was not statistically significant, indicating a need to refine the program's strategies.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In many parts of the world, the struggle to put enough food on the table is a constant reality for families living in poverty. To help, governments and aid organizations often provide social safety nets, which are programs designed to protect the most vulnerable. One common approach is simply giving cash to families so they can buy food immediately. Another approach tries to do more by adding "livelihood support," which means giving people training, seeds, livestock, or help starting small businesses so they can earn their own money in the long run. The big question for development experts is whether this extra help actually makes a difference in stopping hunger, or if the cash alone is enough. In Tanzania, a large national program called the Productive Social Safety Net tries both methods, offering cash transfers to some families and a combination of cash plus livelihood support to others. Researchers wanted to know if the extra support truly helps families feel more secure about their next meal.
A team of researchers from Tanzania set out to find the answer by looking closely at households in four different regions: Dodoma, Morogoro, Singida, and Iringa. They focused on families already enrolled in the national safety net program. To get a clear picture, they divided the families into two groups for comparison. One group, called the treatment group, consisted of 160 households that received both the cash transfers and the livelihood support, such as help with farming or starting a business. The other group, the control group, included 240 households that received only the cash transfers. The researchers wanted to see if the families with the extra help were less likely to face food insecurity than those who just got the money. To measure this, they used a standard tool that asks families about their experiences with food over the past month, such as whether they worried about running out of food, had to skip meals, or went to bed hungry. The result of these questions creates a score where a lower number means the family is more secure, and a higher number means they are struggling more.
The study gathered information from 400 households in total, carefully checking that the two groups were similar in age, education, and family size before comparing their food security scores. The researchers found that the families receiving the extra livelihood support did indeed have a slightly better situation. Their average score for food insecurity was 9.26, while the families who only received cash had a score of 10.21. Since a lower score is better, this suggests that the extra help might be working. However, when the researchers ran the numbers to see if this difference was real and not just a lucky accident, the result was not strong enough to be considered statistically significant. In simple terms, the gap between the two groups was too small to say with confidence that the livelihood support was the direct cause of the improvement. The data showed that while the families with extra help were doing a bit better, the difference could have happened by chance.
To understand why the numbers didn't show a clear win, the researchers spoke with local officials and community leaders who work with these families every day. These conversations revealed a story of gradual change rather than an instant fix. The people helping the families explained that the livelihood support is teaching households to invest in things like goats, chickens, or small crops. These investments take time to grow and produce income. A family might buy a goat today, but they cannot eat the goat or sell it for food immediately; they must wait for it to reproduce or grow. The interviews suggested that the families are learning to save and plan for the future, building a foundation for security that has not yet fully materialized into a measurable reduction in hunger during the short time the study was conducted. The support is changing how people think about money and work, but the full benefits of those changes may take years to become visible in their daily meals.
The study concludes that while the livelihood support is not a magic bullet that instantly solves hunger, it is not useless either. It appears to be helping families build the skills and assets they need to eventually become self-reliant, but the process is slow. The researchers suggest that for these programs to truly reduce food insecurity, they need to be part of a larger, long-term strategy that includes better access to markets, more financial support, and time for the investments to pay off. The evidence shows that simply adding training or assets to a cash transfer does not automatically guarantee a hungry family will be fed tomorrow, but it does suggest a path toward a more secure future if the support continues and is strengthened over time.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.