Household uplifting programme and food security: Evidence from rural southwestern Nigeria

Introduction

Food security remains a critical development challenge in Nigeria, particularly among rural households whose livelihoods depend largely on agriculture and informal economic activities. Food security exists when all people always have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food required for an active and healthy life. However, many rural households in Nigeria continue to experience food insecurity due to poverty, low agricultural productivity, limited income opportunities, and inadequate access to social protection programmes. Recent empirical evidence shows that a significant proportion of rural households still face challenges in meeting their minimum dietary and nutritional requirements due to unstable income and rising food prices (Ibok, Okon, Akpan, and Isip, 2025) [14] . In response to the persistent challenges of poverty and food insecurity, the Federal Government of Nigeria introduced several social protection interventions under the National Social Investment Programme (NSIP), including the Household Upliftment Programme/Conditional Cash Transfer (HUP/CCT). The HUP/CCT programme was designed to provide regular financial support to poor and vulnerable households to enhance their consumption capacity, improve access to basic needs such as food, education, and healthcare, and strengthen their livelihood resilience (Akerete and Ubong, 2025) [2] . The programme specifically targets rural and vulnerable households, aiming to break the cycle of poverty and improve their overall welfare and food security status. Conditional cash transfer programmes have been widely recognized as effective social protection tools for improving household welfare and reducing poverty. These programmes provide financial assistance to vulnerable households, which enables them to increase food consumption, improve dietary diversity, and invest in productive activities (Eluwa et al., 2023) [10] . In Nigeria, the HUP/CCT programme has played a significant role in supporting vulnerable households, with millions of beneficiaries receiving financial assistance to cushion the effects of economic hardship and improve their livelihoods (Ibok et al., 2025) [14] . Despite the implementation of the HUP/CCT programme, food insecurity remains prevalent among rural households in Nigeria. Studies have shown that although conditional cash transfers provide short-term financial relief, their impact on improving food production, dietary diversity, and long-term food security outcomes has been mixed due to structural challenges such as inadequate transfer amounts, irregular payment schedules, and limited complementary support www.extensionjournal.com services (Okoma and Iheobom, 2025) [17] . Maitalata and Aliegba (2023) [15] observed that while cash transfers improved household income and savings capacity, their effectiveness in ensuring sustained food security depends on how beneficiaries utilize the funds and the availability of complementary livelihood support. Furthermore, rural households in Southwestern Nigeria are particularly vulnerable to food insecurity due to declining agricultural productivity, climate variability, limited access to credit, and inadequate institutional support. Social protection programmes such as the HUP/CCT have the potential to enhance household food security by improving income stability and strengthening consumption capacity. In addition, previous studies on conditional cash transfer programmes in Nigeria have largely focused on poverty reduction, household welfare, mitigation of poverty vulnerability, and income improvement, with limited attention to the specific impact of the HUP/CCT programme on household food security, particularly in Southwestern Nigeria (Alabi, Oyesola & Ajuwon, 2025; Akerete and Ubong, 2025) [5,2] . While some studies have examined the impact of cash transfers on food security in other regions such as Akwa Ibom State, there is insufficient empirical evidence comparing the food security status of beneficiary and non-beneficiary rural households in Southwestern Nigeria (Ibok et al., 2025) [14] . Furthermore, there is inadequate information on the extent of rural household participation in training activities under the HUP/CCT programme, the benefits derived from the programme, and the specific challenges that limit beneficiaries from achieving improved food security outcomes. Most existing studies have focused on general programme outcomes without examining the relationship between participation intensity, programme benefits, and household food security status in the Southwestern region. This represents a significant knowledge gap that limits the effectiveness of policy interventions aimed at improving food security through social protection programmes. The persistence of food insecurity among rural households despite the implementation of the HUP/CCT programme raises important questions about the effectiveness of the programme in achieving its intended objectives. Without adequate empirical evidence on the impact of the programme on household food security, policymakers may be unable to make informed decisions on programme improvement, expansion, and sustainability. Therefore, there is a need to critically examine the impact of the HUP/CCT programme on the food security status of rural households in Southwestern Nigeria. Specifically, this study seeks to: assess the respondents' participation in the training activities under the HUP/CCT programme; identify the benefits derived from HUP/CCT by rural households in Southwestern Nigeria; and assess the level of food security among rural household beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the HUP/CCT programme in Southwestern Nigeria.

Methodology

The research design used was a quasi-experimental design to compare the food security statuses of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. The study area was Southwestern Nigeria, one of the six geopolitical zones of the country, comprises six states: Oyo, Ogun, Osun, Ondo, Ekiti, and Lagos. The region lies approximately between latitudes 6°30′ and 8°00′N and longitudes 3°00′ and 6°00′E. It is characterized by a tropical wet and dry climate, with a distinct rainy season (April-October) and dry season (November-March), and mean annual rainfall ranging from 1,200 mm to 2,000 mm. The region's vegetation consists primarily of forest-savannah mosaic and derived savannah, supporting a variety of agricultural activities. Agriculture is the mainstay of the population, with smallholder farming dominating food and cash crop production, including cassava, maize, yam, cocoa, and oil palm. Rural households often face seasonal food insecurity and limited livelihood opportunities, making them key targets for social protection interventions. The Household Uplifting Programme (HUP/CCT) aims to improve food security, income, and empowerment among these vulnerable households. The study focused on households registered as beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of HUP/CCT programme within the study area. A six-stage sampling procedure was adopted to select respondents. Ekiti, Osun, and Oyo States. Ten percent of the Local Government Areas (LGAs) were purposively selected, comprising two LGAs in Ekiti State, three in Osun State, and three in Oyo State. From each selected LGA, two political wards were randomly selected, followed by the random selection of one community from each ward. Subsequently, a sampling frame consisting of 4,026 HUP/CCT programme beneficiaries and 40,499 nonbeneficiaries were obtained. Using proportionate random sampling, 7% of beneficiaries and 0.8% of non-beneficiaries were selected, resulting in an initial sample of 583 respondents (282 beneficiaries and 324 non-beneficiaries) drawn from the National Poor and Vulnerable Register. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was then applied to identify 282 non-beneficiaries with similar socio-economic characteristics as the beneficiaries, yielding a final sample size of 564 respondents, comprising 282 beneficiaries and 282 non-beneficiaries. The reliability of the research instrument was assessed using Spearman's Ranked Order Correlation Coefficient, which produced a value of 0.882, indicating a high level of reliability and confirming the instrument's suitability for the study. Participation in HUP/CCT training activities was measured using a 4-point scale of "Never" (1), "Rarely" (2), "Occasionally" (3), and "Regularly" (4) across areas such as life skills, financial literacy, and health and nutrition education, with Weighted Mean Scores (WMS) computed to reflect participation levels. Similarly, benefits from the programme were evaluated using a three-point Likert scale (low = 1, moderate = 2, high = 3), and analyzed using frequencies, percentages, and WMS to rank the perceived benefits. Household food security status was measured using the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) across nine indicators including worry about food, eating disliked foods, skipping meals, and going without food, with frequency recorded as "Never" (0), "Rarely" (1), "Sometimes" (2), or "Often" (3), converted into WMS to compare beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Weighted Mean Scores (WMS) were calculated for each HFIAS item to summarize the average intensity of food insecurity and rank the severity of experiences among households." Household food consumption was measured using food frequency over seven days for twelve food categories, www.extensionjournal.com recorded as 0 days (0), 1-2 days (1), 3-4 days (2), and 5-7 days (3), while Dietary Diversity Score (DDS) was calculated as the proportion of households consuming foods from eight major food groups, with responses coded as Yes (1) or No (0). Food security of the households (beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) was examined using three indicators: HFIAS, DSS, and household food consumption pattern. The level of food security was computed from the scores of these three components. The scores were standardized using Z-scores and then combined to form a composite score. The resulting composite scores were used to categorize households into food secure and food insecure levels of food security. Data analysis included descriptive statistics such as percentages, frequencies, mean scores, standard deviation, and inferential statistics using T-test.

Results and Discussion Participation of respondents in Training Activities under HUP/CCT Programme

Table 1 reveals the participation of respondents in training activities under the HUP/CCT programme. The high participation in financial literacy training (x̄ = 3.96) and cooperative formation (x̄ = 3.96) indicate that these components are central to how beneficiaries engage with the HUP/CCT programme. Financial literacy equips households with budgeting, savings, and expenditure-planning skills, which directly enhance their ability to convert cash transfers into improved food access. This aligns with Ogunniyi, Kehinde, and Adeyemi (2022) [16] , who found that financial management training significantly improves rural households' welfare and food security by strengthening their financial capital. Similarly, the strong participation in cooperative formation reflects the importance of social capital in rural livelihoods. Cooperatives provide access to credit, group savings, and collective purchasing power, which are essential for stabilizing food consumption. The high engagement in entrepreneurship (x̄ = 3.78) and vocational skills training (x̄ = 3.77) further suggests that beneficiaries view income diversification as a pathway to long-term food security. This corroborates Oyinbo (2015) [21] , who demonstrated that livelihood training increases income-generating capacity and reduces food insecurity among rural households. Participation in health and nutrition education (x̄ = 3.73) also supports improved dietary practices, consistent with Grace et al. (2018) [11] , who found that nutrition education enhances household dietary quality and utilization. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) provided further insights into these findings. One participant stated: "The financial training taught me how to budget my cash transfer; now I can buy enough food for my family and save a little each month." Another participant highlighted the value of cooperative and group dynamics training: "Joining the cooperative group allowed us to access loans and buy farming inputs together, which we could not have done alone." These qualitative insights corroborate the quantitative results, showing that high participation in HUP/CCT training has enhanced both individual skills and collective resource access. The high participation across the training components indicates that the HUP/CCT programme has strengthened beneficiaries' financial capacity, livelihood skills, and social capital, thereby improving food access, income stability, and overall household food security, consistent with the findings of Oyetunde-Usman and Olagunju (2019) [20] . Programme/Conditional Cash Transfer (HUP/CCT) provides substantial benefits to rural households, with a grand mean score of 2.30. Affordability of more and better-quality food ranked highest (x̄ = 2.39), followed by supplementing household income to meet basic needs (x̄ = 2.38) and improved livelihoods and savings (x̄ = 2.33). This suggests that the programme has strengthened household welfare by increasing access to adequate food and improving financial capacity, which is consistent with the findings of Ibok, Okon, Akpan, and Isip (2025) [14] . Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with beneficiaries revealed that many households used cash transfers to purchase staple foods, improve meal quality, and invest in small-scale farming inputs. One participant explained: "Before the programme, we sometimes had to skip meals, but now we can afford to buy enough food and even improve what we eat." Another noted that "the cash helped me start petty trading, which provided additional income to support household needs." The benefits of women empowerment (x̄ = 2.31) and poverty reduction (x̄ = 2.31) indicate that the programme has enhanced social inclusion and decision-making capacity for women. FGD participants reported that "We, women are now more involved in budgeting for food and household www.extensionjournal.com expenditures", confirming Chima (2021) [7] , that cash transfers strengthen women's agency and household welfare. Lower-ranked benefits such as access to education (x̄ = 2.21) and reduced child labour (x̄ = 2.18) suggest that while immediate consumption and food security outcomes are strong, long-term social and educational benefits require additional support. This aligns with the study of Alabi and Oyesola (2025) [4] who noted that CCT programme has brought about tangible benefits for household beneficiaries, including meeting household needs, increasing income and purchasing power, boosting self-confidence, and enhancing food security and savings.

Food Security Status of Household Beneficiaries and Non-beneficiaries of HUP/CCT Programme

The findings from Tables 5a, 5b and 5c collectively provide insight into the food access, food consumption behaviour and dietary diversity of households participating in the Household Uplifting Programme/Conditional Cash Transfer (HUP/CCT) compared with non-beneficiaries. Table 3 shows that both groups experienced some level of food insecurity, but the intensity was lower among beneficiaries. Beneficiaries recorded relatively low weighted mean scores (WMS) across most indicators, such as worrying about food availability (x̄ = 1.53 vs 1.72), skipping meals (1.56 vs 1.71), and going to bed hungry (1.58 vs 1.72). This suggests that participation in the programme helped reduce the severity of food access constraints. This finding aligns with Daidone et al. (2019) [8] who reported that social protection programmes significantly improve household food access and reduce food insecurity intensity among vulnerable households in developing countries. FGD participants supported this observation, with one stating, "the cash transfer helps us buy food when there is no money from farming, so we worry less," and another adding, "before the programme, we sometimes skipped meals, but now we manage the money to buy food for the household." These responses indicate that cash transfers improved household purchasing power and stabilized food consumption. Table 4 further reveals that beneficiaries had higher food consumption frequencies across key food groups. For example, 78.7% of beneficiaries consumed cereals 5-7 days per week compared with 57.5% of non-beneficiaries, 65.2% consumed vegetables regularly versus 36.2% among non-beneficiaries, 36.2% consumed legumes 5-7 days weekly versus 14.9%, and 29.1% consumed fish frequently compared with 11.3%. FGD insights confirm these patterns, with respondents noting that 'the cash allows them to buy rice, beans, fish, and vegetables more consistently'. This indicates that beneficiaries had better access to staple foods and protein sources, reflecting improved food availability and utilization. Table 5 shows that dietary diversity was higher among beneficiaries. For instance, 70.9% consumed fruits compared with 53.2% of non-beneficiaries, 74.5% consumed animal protein versus 60.3%, 78.0% consumed legumes versus 63.8%, and 49.6% consumed dairy products compared with 31.9%. FGD participants corroborated this, noting, "before the programme, we mostly ate Garri and soup, but now we sometimes add fruits, eggs, and meat." These results indicate that the programme enhanced the nutritional quality of household diets by enabling households to diversify beyond staples. This supports the findings of Tirivayi and Davis (2023) [23] , who observed that cash transfer programmes significantly increase household dietary diversity and improve nutritional outcomes among low-income households. The combined results suggest that the HUP/CCT programme improved food access, consumption frequency, and dietary diversity among beneficiary households. However, moderate levels of food insecurity persist among some beneficiaries, highlighting that cash transfers alone may not eliminate food insecurity, especially amid rising food prices and economic shocks. Strengthening the programme with higher transfer amounts and complementary livelihood interventions could further enhance household food security outcomes. Composite Food Security Index and Categorization of Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries Food security status of households was computed from three indicators: Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), Household Food Consumption Pattern, and Dietary Diversity Score (DDS). The scores from these three components were standardized using Z-scores and aggregated to obtain a composite food security index, which was used to categorize households into food secure and food insecure groups. The categorization of households based on the composite food security index (Table 5) shows a marked difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the HUP/CCT programme. Among beneficiaries, 211 households (74.8%) were food secure, while only 71 households (25.2%) were food insecure. In contrast, majority of non-beneficiaries, 183 households (64.9%), were classified as food insecure, with only 99 households (35.1%) achieving food security. This stark contrast highlights the substantial impact of the HUP/CCT programme on improving the food security status of participating households. The higher mean food security score recorded among beneficiaries (15.79 ± 3.19) compared to non-beneficiaries (13.78 ± 3.86) further confirms that the programme enhanced household food access, consumption frequency, and dietary diversity. Participation in the cash transfer scheme appears to improve households' purchasing power, allowing them to meet their basic food needs and consume a more varied diet. These findings are consistent with previous studies. For instance, Daidone et al. (2019) [8] reported that social protection programmes increase household food consumption and dietary diversity by stabilizing income and reducing exposure to food insecurity. Similarly, Tirivayi and Davis (2023) [23] observed that cash transfer interventions improve food security in developing countries by increasing household food expenditure and enhancing diet quality. Handa et al. (2018) [12] also noted that regular cash transfers enable households to smooth consumption and maintain consistent food access during periods of economic shocks and seasonal shortages. Despite the overall positive impact, the presence of a small proportion of food-insecure beneficiaries (25.2%) indicates that the programme's cash amount may not fully cover the food needs of all households, particularly in the context of rising food prices or large household sizes. This suggests that while HUP/CCT significantly improves food security, additional support or complementary interventions may be required to fully eliminate food insecurity among vulnerable rural households.

Categorization of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries based on food security of households

Conclusion and Recommendation

The study concludes that the Household Uplifting Programme/Conditional Cash Transfer (HUP/CCT) significantly improved food security among rural households in Southwestern Nigeria. Beneficiaries experienced better food access, more consistent consumption of diverse foods, and higher dietary quality compared with non-beneficiaries. Participation in programme training enhanced financial literacy, livelihood skills, and cooperative engagement, strengthening household resilience and resource management. Focus group discussions confirmed that cash transfers helped households stabilize food consumption, diversify diets, and support small-scale income-generating activities. However, a small proportion of beneficiaries remained moderately food insecure, indicating that cash alone may not fully eliminate vulnerability. The study recommended that to maximize impact, cash transfer amounts should be increased and regularly adjusted to match inflation and household food needs. Livelihood support and nutrition education should also be strengthened to improve income generation and dietary outcomes for more sustainable food security.

References

1. Adepoju AO, Adejare KA. Food insecurity status of rural households during post-planting season in Nigeria. In: Fourth International Conference of the African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE); 2013 Sep 22-25;
2. Akerete AU, Ubong NJ. Conditional cash transfer and poverty reduction among vulnerable households in Nigeria public service delivery. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS). 2025;9(10):527-540. doi:10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000527.
3. Akpabio ES, Omotoso KO. Food security and social protection in Africa: Re-establishing the nexus. In: Zero Hunger. Cham: Springer; 2021. p. 1-11. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69626-3_104-1.
4. Alabi AF, Oyesola OB. Rural households' benefits derived from conditional cash transfer programme in Southwestern Nigeria. Faman Journal. 2025;25(2A):242-251.
5. Alabi AF, Oyesola OB, Ajuwon IO. Conditional cash transfer and vulnerability to poverty in rural Southwestern Nigeria. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology. 2025;43(12):250-262. doi:10.9734/ajaees/2025/v43i122874.
6. Balana BB, Ogunniyi A, Oyeyemi M, Fasoranti A, Edeh H, Andam KS. COVID-19, food insecurity and dietary diversity of households: Survey evidence from Nigeria. Food Security. 2023;15(1):219-241. doi:10.1007/s12571-022-01312-w.
7. Chima I. Social protection programmes and household welfare in Nigeria. Journal of Enterprise Development. 2022;4(1):60-76. doi:10.20414/jed.v4i1.4911.
8. Daidone S, Davis B, Handa S, Winters P. The household and individual-level productive impacts of cash transfer programs in Sub-Saharan Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2019;101(5):1401-1431. doi:10.1093/ajae/aaz009.
9. Devereux S, Sabates-Wheeler R. Transformative social protection. Food Policy. 2004;29(4):387-404.
10. Eluwa TF, Eluwa GIE, Iorwa A, Daini BO, Abdullahi K, Balogun M, et al. Impact of unconditional cash transfers on household livelihood outcomes in Nigeria. Journal of Social Policy. 2025;54(2):595-610. doi:10.1017/S0047279423000533.
11. Grace D, Choudhury BGF, Hsus B, Smith PC. Impact of social cash transfer programmes on food security in sub-Saharan Africa: A review. Agricultural and Food Economics. 2018;6:5. doi:10.1186/s40100-018-010622.
12. Handa S, Natali L, Seidenfeld D, Tembo G, Davis B. Can unconditional cash transfers raise long-term living standards? Evidence from Zambia. Journal of Development Economics. 2018;133:42-65. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2018.01.008.
13. Hidrobo M, Peterman A, Heise L. The effect of cash, vouchers, and food transfers on intimate partner violence: Evidence from randomized experiments in Northern Ecuador. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 2016;8(3):284-303. doi:10.1257/app.20150048.
14. Ibok O, Okon I, Akpan OS, Isip IF. Impact of conditional cash transfer on households food security in www.extensionjournal.com Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. PLOS ONE. 2025;20(6):e0325594. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325594.
15. Maitalata Y, Aliegba B. Effect of cash transfer programme on households in Giwa LGA of Jigawa State. FUDMA Journal of Accounting and Finance Research. 2023;1(3):162-176. doi:10.33003/fujafr2023.v1i3.71.162-176.
16. Ogunniyi AI, Kehinde MO, Adeyemi O. Agricultural extension access and rural household welfare in Nigeria. Cogent Food & Agriculture. 2022;8(1):2034247. doi:10.1080/23322039.2022.2034247.
17. Okoma CM, Iheobom SEL. Conditional cash transfer and rural livelihood outcomes in Nigeria: Implications for food security. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews. 2025;6(10):1721-1725.
18. Okoma CM, Adebo GM, Nwoye EO, Nze CEN. Assessment of effectiveness of conditional cash transfer as a tool for improving food production in Ondo State. International Journal of Smart Agriculture. 2025;3(1):46-50. doi:10.54536/ijsa.v3i1.6033.
19. Osabohien R, Ashraf J, DeAlwis T, Ufua DE, Osabuohien E, Odularu G. Social protection and food security nexus in the Global South: Empirical evidence from West Africa. Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences. 2021;17(2). doi:10.1080/21582041.2021.2005125.
20. Oyetunde-Usman Z, Olagunju KO. Determinants of food security and technical efficiency among agricultural households in Nigeria. Economies. 2019;7(4):103. doi:10.3390/economies7040103.
21. Oyinbo O. Technical efficiency-food security nexus in Kaduna State, Nigeria: A case study of poultry egg farmers. Consilience. 2015;14:74-90. doi:10.7916/consilience.v0i14.4671.
22. Papucci AT, Houngbe P, Lompo P, Yameogo WME, Huneau J, Aissa MA, et al. Beneficiaries' perception and reported use of unconditional cash transfer intended to prevent acute malnutrition in children in poor rural communities in Burkina Faso. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:527.
23. Tirivayi N, Davis B. The interaction between social protection and agriculture: A review of evidence. Global Food Security. 2016;10:52-62. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2016.08.004.