surveyed households fall below the poverty line of USD 1.90 per person per day, 49% had no bread to eat in the 7 days prior to the survey and 70% had no meat or dairy products to eat.

**Economic activity (age > 14). Figure A4b** shows detailed information on economic activities individuals engaged in the 7 days prior to the study. The most frequent activity was non-agricultural self-employment, which 41% engaged in, followed by help in family non-farm businesses (30%), salaried labor (26%), and agricultural self-employment (24%). On average, workers engage in about two separate economic activities and for 24% the main sector is agriculture ( **Table 1** ).

**School attendance (age > 14). Figure A4c** shows the distribution of school attendance by age, from 6 to 14 completed years of age, the range for which schooling is compulsory. School attendance rates are above 75% for ages 11 and over, and tend to decrease slightly for younger ages. Stated reasons for non-attendance vary widely, but 14% say that the child “is still too young” to attend school, the second most frequent answer ( **Table 1** ). By far the most common reported reason is a “lack of financial resources” (66%).

**Displacement and local violence.** The average IDP household has been displaced for 3.7 years, has moved 1.3 times and the vast majority (92%) report that Boko Haram activity was their main reason for displacement ( **Table 1** ). The number of events of local violence individuals were exposed to over the 12 months prior to the survey ranges from 0 up to 44, with high numbers concentrated in small areas in Maiduguri. Of the sample, 39% were exposed to any local violence captured in the ACLED dataset, and the average individual was exposed about 7 documented events.

**Household gender and composition. Table 2** reports information on gender and composition at the household level, broken down by IDP status. Of the surveyed households, 34% are headed by a female and there is no significant difference between IDP and non-IDPs. In terms of composition, non-IDP households are slightly larger. While the mean difference with non-IDPs is statistically significant, it is modest in magnitude (6.24 members in non-IDP households versus 5.93 members in IDP households). The slight difference between IDPs and non-IDPs is driven by a slightly higher average number of adults in the household, for both men (1.51 versus 1.29) and women (1.54 versus 1.36). By contrast, IDP and non-IDP households do not differ significantly in the number of boys, girls, and children in total (around 3 on average). Notably, IDP and non-IDPs also do not differ systematically in terms of gender composition. This includes the number of women versus men in the household, the number of girls versus boys, and the number of economically active women versus economically active men.

# **5 Results**

# **5.1 Harmful food coping among households**

**Table 3** presents baseline estimates on the role of gender and displacement for engaging in harmful food-related behaviors (harmful food coping). We find strong evidence that IDP households employ significantly more harmful food coping than non-IDP households. Being an IDP household is robustly associated with a decrease around .25 standard deviation in the rCSI. In absolute terms, this corresponds to a 2.97-point increase, which is sizable and concerning given that the mean absolute score is 11 and scores above 10 are considered “severely food insecure” (Vaitla, Coates

10