This document summarizes the results of a phone survey conducted in Senegal on the impact of COVID-19 on rural households. It finds that almost all households suffered income losses due to the pandemic. As a result, over half of households ate less and over 30% went hungry. Access to water was also a challenge, with 30% of households lacking sufficient water for handwashing and drinking. The survey aims to track these welfare indicators over time to understand how the pandemic continues to affect rural communities in Senegal.

1. Impact of COVID19 on the welfare of
rural households in Senegal, round 1
Prepared by
Fleur Wouterse (IFPRI-AFR)

2. COVID-19 in Senegal
▪ First case was March 2, 2020
oJune 30: 6,793 cases, 112 deaths, 30 in intensive care
▪ Swift government action:
oContact tracing & isolation, testing
oAirport closed, social distancing, schools and mosques closed,
large gatherings banned
oRestrictions on public transportation and other vehicle movement
between regions
oState of Emergency declared on 23 March, lifted on 30 June

3. Phone Survey
▪ Building on a recent large, representative rural household survey conducted
across the country in 2018
▪ Data collected in FTF zones of influence, oversampling female headed
households (79/503)
▪ Phone credit of 1,000 FCFA offered for each completed survey
▪ First wave of phone survey conducted in late June with 500 households
▪ Four more waves foreseen
▪ Focus on income changes & food and nutrition security
▪ And knowledge and behavioral responses to COVID-19

4. Phone survey
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
First attempt Second attempt
Response rate
Male-headed Female headed

5. Location of
respondents

6. Location of respondents (share of households)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Bakel
Bignona
Birkelane
Bounkilling
Dagana
Foundiougne
Goudomp
Kaffrine
Kanel
Kaolack
Kolda
Koumpentoum
Koungheul
Kédougou
Malem Hoddar
Matam
Médina Yoro Foula
Oussouye
Podor
Salemata
Saraya
Sédhiou
Velingara
Ziguinchor

7. Household descriptives
▪ 16% of households are female headed
▪ Most females head a household once their spouse has deceases
▪ Male heads of households are often in polygamous unions (56 percent)
▪ Questions asked about first spouse only
▪ All households have farming as their main activity

8. Water, sanitation and hygiene
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
All Male respondent Female respondent
Shareofhouseholds
Source of water
Running water Dug well Water kiosk Water distribution at home

9. Water, sanitation and hygiene
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
All respondents Male respondents Female respondents
Shareofhouseholds
More than 30 minutes to fetch water
Yes No

10. Water, sanitation and hygiene
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
All respondents Male respondents Female respondents
Shareofhouseholds
Toilet facilities
Toilettes/latrines Bush

11. Household Water Insecurity Experience Scale (HWISE)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
All respondents Male respondents Female respondents
Shareofhouseholds
Frequency of worrying about water availability
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

12. Household Water Insecurity Experience Scale (HWISE)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
All respondents Male respondents Female respondents
Shareofhouseholds Frequency of changing plans due to water situation
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

13. Household Water Insecurity Experience Scale (HWISE)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
All respondents Male respondents Female respondents
Shareofhouseholds
Insufficient drinking water
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

14. Household Water Insecurity Experience Scale (HWISE)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
All respondents Male respondents Female respondents
Insufficient handwashing
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

15. WASH and HWISE
▪ About half of households have access to running water, less access for female
headed households
▪ Less than 20 percent of households needed more than 30 minutes to fetch water
▪ About 10 percent of household struggled with water access, slightly more
prominent for female headed households.
▪ About 70 percent of male headed households had access to a toilet/latrine
against 55 percent of female headed households
▪ 40% of households worried about water availability and had to change plans due
to problems with water; 30% did not have enough water for handwashing and
drinking
▪ Almost all households had heard about hand washing recommendations to avoid
COVID-19

16. COVID-19 and household welfare
▪ Almost all households suffered a loss of income due to COVID-19.
▪ There is no difference between male and female-headed households
▪ Shock is often covariate: respondent and other household members are
affected.

17. Coping mechanisms to deal with loss of income
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Eating less
nutritious
foods
Skipping meals Eating less Going hungry Borrowed
money
Sold assets Used savings
Shareofhouseholds
Female respondents Male respondents

18. Worked in the last 7 days
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Yes No
Shareofhouseholds
Female headed Male headed

19. Time worked in the last 7 days compared to before COVID
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Head of houshold (male) Spouse (female)
Incidenceofresponse
More Less Same

20. Mobility: leave the house to…. in the last 7 days (yes)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Buy food Sell food Work Medical
care
Group
meeting
Socialize Collect
water/wood
Shareofhouseholds

21. Dietary diversity score (Minimum Dietary Diversity for
Women, last 24 hours), number of food groups
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Shareofhouseholds
Female respondents

22. Conclusions
▪ Household welfare severely compromised by COVID-19
▪ Households have resorted to several coping measures
▪ More than half of the households were eating less because of COVID-19
and more than one third of respondents went hungry.
▪ Around 30% of households lacked sufficient water for handwashing and
water for drinking
▪ Next round coming up (planned for next week 20th of July)
▪ Will enable us to:
oSurvey more females
oTrack indicators through time