GIFMM Joint Multi-Sector Needs Assessment COVID 19 | June 2020

Limitations methodology: ●The 22 databases used to create the sampling frame contain information on around 82,000 households, comprising approximately 410,000 people. There may be duplicate households among the databases, which could not be removed prior to the surveys, due to the different data protection policies. It should be taken into account that there is a selection bias in the sample frame since the people in these databases are those who have been in contact with the organizations participating in the survey (as beneficiaries, participants in previous surveys - e.g. eligibility surveys or information campaigns). As a result, the information collected is not representative of the entire Venezuelan population in the country. For instance, the proportion of surveyed households receiving assistance is likely to be higher than the proportion of refugee and migrants receiving assistance. Additionally, some profiles of refugees and migrants such as people in transit by foot ('caminantes'), host communities and Colombian returnees are not included in the needs assessment, which focuses on the population from Venezuela with an intention to stay in Colombia. ● The sampling design allows for analysis on a national level, and for the 10 prioritized departments. The information on the remaining 16 departments inform the national level analysis. ● This assessment was designed to provide an analysis from a multi-sectoral perspective and does not intend to provide a detailed analysis of all sector specific concerns, their causes and impacts. As a result, sector specific assessments may be required to measure concerns in further detail. ● The results should be interpreted in light of the COVID-19 crisis and preventative measures that were in place at the time of data collection. ● The unit of measurement is the household and as such, only limited information was collected regarding the conditions and experiences of specific members of the household. Therefore, the resulting data are likely to mask significant differences within households. ● As several of the respondents received assistance through the organizations conducting the interviews, it is likely that some results have been influenced by a response error. ● There are general limitations to conducting phone-based surveys: first of all, it is not possible to confirm responses through direct observation as is common during face-to-face surveys. In addition, issues considered sensitive to respondents may be underreported. ● Likewise, as the information is collected remotely, several indicators should be considered as proxy-indicators of the food security situation, adapted to the COVID-19 context. As a result, the findings are indicative of the food security situation, and cannot determine the food security situation of all households interviewed. ● The PANEL data analysis applies to 448 households that could be followed up during the data collection process. Due to the change in database coverage between the first and second round (>45.000 vs. >82.000 households, respectively), no direct comparisons can be made between the other results. This information is indicative and only shows changes in perceptions for this number of households. During the second round, the respondent within the household might have differed from the first round, which might have influenced some of the changes recorded.