This study investigates the impact of cash and food assistance on food security and self-reliance among refugee communities in Uganda. Despite being one of the poorest and most food-insecure countries globally, Uganda hosts over 1.5 million refugees (as of September 2023) and has adopted inclusive refugee policies. These policies provide refugees with land for cultivation, freedom of movement, and the right to work, with the aim of fostering their self-reliance. However, refugee settlements and host districts continue to experience high levels of poverty and food insecurity.
The authors leverage the variation in the household assistance received within and across settlements to examine the impact of different types of assistance (cash and food) on households’ likelihood to adopt adverse coping strategies, food-related indicators and agricultural outcomes. They also examine how these effects vary by the size of land available for cultivation and the duration of stay in the settlement.
The analysis is based on the FAO Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis (RIMA) dataset, which is representative of around 80 percent of the total refugees living in Uganda as of 2018. This dataset includes comprehensive information on household socio-demographic and economic indicators, such as food security, shocks, assistance, perceived resilience capacity, coping strategies, aspirations, access to basic services, employment, and agricultural and livestock production. Two waves of data were collected: the first in November–December 2017 in Northern districts and March 2018 in Southwest Uganda, and the second in December 2019 to track all households interviewed in the first wave. The analysis focuses on 1,283 refugee households in each wave.
Descriptive statistics show that in the first wave, 20 percent of households received cash assistance and 55 percent received food assistance. In the second wave, these percentages increased to 34 and 60, respectively. Only a small fraction of households received both cash and food transfers: 4.7 percent in the first wave and 1.9 percent in the second.
Main empirical findings:
- Both cash and food transfers reduce the adoption of adverse coping strategies due to food shortages. Cash transfers decrease the number of days a household resorts to purchasing food on credit by 35 percent, harvesting and consuming immature crops by 37 percent, consuming seed stock needed for the next season by 43 percent, selling small assets by 133 percent, and exchanging food for work by 76 percent, relative to the sample average. Food transfers reduce the average number of days a household resorts to these coping strategies by 48 percent, 51 percent, 52 percent, 93 percent, and 31 percent, respectively.
- Household receiving cash increase their food expenditure, while households receiving food transfers directly satisfy their food needs with the in-kind transfer, decreasing their food expenditure. Households receiving cash transfers increase their food expenditure by about 23 percent, while those receiving food transfers decrease their food expenditure by 32 percent.
- Food transfers contribute to better food security, as measured by the FCS Index, but this is not the case for cash transfer beneficiaries. Households receiving food transfers register an increase in their FCS of 8.5 percent, while those receiving cash transfers are not statistically different from non-beneficiaries.
- The longer households stay in the settlement, the more significant the impact of transfers on negative coping strategies. Both cash and food transfers significantly reduce the likelihood of adopting negative coping strategies for households residing in the settlement for at least 10 to 16 months.
- Permanence in settlements positively affects food security for food transfer recipients. This positive effect is evident for households living in the settlement for more than 10 months and increases linearly with time.
- The benefits of transfers on food expenditure apply to almost all recipients, regardless of their time in the settlement. Cash transfers have a significant impact across a wide range of time distributions, except for households residing for more than six years. Food transfers impact the entire distribution.
- Effects of cash transfers on negative coping strategies depend on the sex of the household head. Male-headed households receiving cash transfers reduce the consumption of immature crops, seed crops for the next season, and the sale of small assets, but their food expenditure does not change significantly. Female-headed households receiving cash spend more on food, rely less on work-for-food practices, and reduce the sale of small assets.
- Effects of food transfers on negative coping strategies also depend on the sex of the household head. Female-head households greatly reduce the adoption of almost all negative coping strategies (except for the work-for-food practice), while male-headed households do not report such a significant reduction (except for food on credit and the work-for-food practices).
- The availability of cultivable land influences the effect of transfers on the agricultural production. Households with at least 1.5 acres of land are 25-31 percent more likely to produce maize after receiving cash transfers, irrespective of their land size. Those with at least 3 acres are 25-51 percent more likely to produce beans. Food transfers decrease the probability of engaging in agricultural activity. Households receiving transfers (both cash and food) are not more likely to earn income from crop sales, regardless of land size.
- Effects of transfers on agricultural productivity depend on the sex of the household head. Female-headed households report a significant increase in agricultural assets and maize yield when receiving cash transfers, while male-headed households do not. Food transfers negatively impact agricultural assets for female-headed households and positively impact maize yield for male-headed households.
The authors conclude that transfers improve refugees’ food security and reduce their reliance on negative coping strategies. Food transfers enhance the quality and variety of diets, while cash transfers support agricultural self-reliance for those with sufficient land. The findings emphasize the need to consider beneficiaries’ characteristics (e.g., land size, duration in settlement, cash management skills) and contextual factors (e.g., market access) when choosing the type of transfer. Food transfers may be prioritized for refugees with limited cash literacy or poor market access, while cash transfers may be better for those with larger productive land assets. Given the limited land access for many refugees and the anticipated increase in refugee influxes, the authors recommend restraining land fragmentation to provide larger, productive areas for those engaging in agriculture. Additionally, promoting alternative business opportunities along the value chain, with appropriate support, should be considered for other household profiles.