The Community Trust Index looks at how much people trust the Mozambique Red Cross (CVM) by checking how well it can do its job and what its most important beliefs are. It looks at the things that affect how the community feels about trust, as well as what people think about the Early Warning System.

The results show what is good and what needs to be improved, to help make it easier for people to get involved in the community and help make better rules and plans. The index wants to make a community that people can trust and that can deal with problems, which will help Mozambique develop in a way that will last and make the communities there happy.

Sampling

The samples were taken at random in the two districts of Buzi and Chigubo, which are often hit by floods, cyclones and droughts. The groups were divided up based on age, gender and education level. There were also different groups for different areas to make sure that all types of people were included.

The Mozambique Red Cross (CVM) did the survey in March 2025 as part of the Community Trust Index initiative. CVM gave out the questionnaire, which asked people what they thought about trust in the community and how well the Early Warning System worked. This was all part of the Building Trust project. In total, 1,690 people over 18 from the two districts were asked questions, and this gave us some interesting information about how people trust each other in places in Mozambique that are often hit by disasters.

See metrics: Metrics

Geographic

The sample distribution shows a slight difference from the population structure of the two districts. Buzi is under-represented in the sample (74.1% vs. 88.9%), while Chigubo is over-represented (25.9% vs. 11.1%) compared to official population figures. These differences will be considered during the analysis, and adjustments may be made to make sure that the results are representative.

Coverage

Gender and Age

The sample is a good representation of the population in terms of age and gender. The number of women aged between 18 and 39 is almost the same as the overall population. However, there are slightly more women aged 40 and over. For men, the respondents aged 18–39 closely match the proportions of men in the census. However, there are more older men (particularly those aged 60+) than there are men in the population. These small imbalances might need to be adjusted after the initial analysis.

Education

The education profile of the sample is closely aligned with population data. University and secondary levels match well (23.3% vs. 22.7% and 40.7% vs. 43.4%). Primary education is slightly under-represented (24.7% vs. 27.6%), while those with no formal education are somewhat over-represented (11.2% vs. 6.4%).

Employment

The available data on employment status is not directly comparable with official labour force statistics. According to the 2021 census, the employment rate was 49%, whereas the survey indicates a higher rate of over 70%. Within the survey, business (28.8%) and agriculture (24%) are the main sources of work, while 22% of respondents reported being unemployed (6% looking for work and 16% not looking). Smaller groups are engaged in full-time jobs (9.3%), irregular or informal work (7.1%), or are full-time students (8.9%). As no comparable population breakdown is available, these results should be interpreted with caution.

Source: https://censusnepal.cbs.gov.np/results/files/result-folder/Labour%20Force%20and%20Economic%20Activities%20in%20Nepal.pdf

Limitations

The data presented in this study should be interpreted with caution due to methodological limitations related to sampling and representativeness. While the survey provides valuable insights, certain groups and regions are over- or under-represented compared with census distributions. For example, Sudur Paschim province is over-represented, women aged 40+ are slightly under-represented, and older men are over-represented. Similarly, differences are observed in education levels, employment categories, and district representation.

To reduce these imbalances, post-stratification adjustments were applied using key variables such as age, gender, education, and employment status. These corrections improve comparability but cannot fully eliminate bias introduced by the sampling approach. As a result, the findings should be viewed as broadly indicative rather than fully representative of the wider population, and caution is advised when generalizing beyond the surveyed groups.

Survey Results

Drivers of trust

Pillar 3

Pillar 4

Perception of Risk

Contextual questions

This section presents findings on community members’ experiences with and behaviors toward the Red Cross. These questions explore interactions, perceptions, and engagement patterns, offering insights into how the Red Cross is viewed and utilized within the community.

Experiences

The survey shows that a large majority of respondents reported not having donated (76.1%) or volunteered (84.9%) with the Nepal Red Cross Society. By contrast, 42.8% reported having received aid or support, highlighting that engagement is more common through assistance than through contributions or volunteering.

Others Questions

Score

This score is derived from responses to questions that assess perceptions of competencies and values, providing a comprehensive measure of trust. A higher score indicates stronger trust, suggesting that community members believe their needs are being addressed and their values are respected. Learn more about scoring method: Methods

Overall Score

For Warning Dissemination & Communication, the strongest dimensions are Responsiveness (8.86), Effectiveness (8.82), and Inclusiveness (8.40), indicating high confidence in the quality and timeliness of communications. Participation (7.90), Awareness (7.71), and Transparency (7.36) score slightly lower but remain strong overall. Feedback (7.16) is the lowest-rated dimension within this category, suggesting opportunities to strengthen mechanisms for receiving and integrating community input.

In Preparedness & Response Capabilities, Awareness (8.58) and Inclusiveness (8.40) receive the highest ratings, followed by strong scores in Effectiveness (7.91), Responsiveness (7.51), and Participation (7.48). Transparency (7.33) and Feedback (7.07) are comparatively lower, representing potential areas for enhancement but still falling within generally positive performance levels.

Overall, combined scores show strong performance in Inclusiveness, Effectiveness, Awareness, and Responsiveness. Participation and Transparency sit in the mid-range, while Feedback remains the lowest-rated driver. These results indicate generally high confidence in the system, with clearer opportunities to improve transparency and strengthen feedback channels.

Learn more about weighting process: Weighting

Scores by Pillar

Combined Pillar Scores

Dimension definition

Score by factors

This chart compares scores for Warning Dissemination & Communication and Preparedness & Response Capabilities across different demographic and contextual groups.

Overall, results show:

  • Education is a key factor: respondents with a secondary, technical or university education report the highest scores in both Warning Dissemination & Communication and Preparedness & Response Capabilities.

-Trust varies by hazard type: respondents who identify drought as their main hazard report noticeably lower scores across both pillars, whereas those exposed to cyclones or floods show higher levels of trust in warning communication and preparedness systems.

  • Geographic variation: Sofala and Buzi show notably higher scores across both pillars, while Gaza and Chigubo perform comparatively lower.

A key insight is that prior engagement—such as awareness of CLGRR, interaction with the program, or having received early warnings—is strongly associated with higher trust and capacity scores, highlighting the critical role of direct community involvement in strengthening early warning systems.

Distribution of mean scores for values and competencies per demographic questions

Pillars 3 & 4

Score by respondent profile

This chart compares scores across both Warning Dissemination & Communication and Preparedness & Response Capabilities based on three types of prior engagement: awareness of EWS equipment, awareness of CLGRR, and interaction with CLGRR, alongside respondents with no such engagement (“Others”).

Across every indicator and both pillars, a consistent pattern emerges: - Respondents who are aware of EWS equipment score the highest, followed closely by those aware of or engaged with CLGRR. Their ratings cluster between 8.0 and 9.1, reflecting strong confidence in the early warning system’s performance. - Those who have interacted with CLGRR also show elevated scores, though slightly lower than the EWS-aware group, indicating that direct program involvement remains a strong driver of trust and perceived effectiveness. - Respondents without awareness or engagement (“Others”) score dramatically lower—typically between 4.5 and 6.5—highlighting a significant gap in trust, inclusion, responsiveness, and preparedness among less-engaged community members.

Overall, the results show that awareness and engagement are powerful determinants of confidence in early warning systems, with informed and involved individuals reporting substantially higher trust and capability across all dimensions.

Pillars 3 & 4

Methods and Metrics

Methods

Scoring methodology

To determine the score, we employ the following method:

  1. Survey Structure The CTI – Early Warning and Anticipation module organizes all questions according to the four pillars of the Early Warning for All (EW4All) initiative:
  • Disaster Risk Knowledge
  • Detection, Monitoring and Forecasting
  • Warning, Dissemination and Communication
  • Preparedness and Response Capacity

Each pillar includes several sub-dimensions designed to assess different aspects of early warning system implementation.

  1. Sub-Dimension Scoring

    Each sub-dimension comprises several survey items (questions).Respondents answer on a Likert-type scale (1 to 4 - Don’t not is excluded). For each sub-dimension:

    Sub-dimension Score = ∑ (Weighted Response Scores) / Number of Items

If weights are not empirically derived, equal weighting is typically applied to each item.

  1. Pillar Scoring

Subsequent to the calculation of all sub-dimension scores, the score for each pillar is derived as the arithmetic mean of their respective sub-dimension scores.

For pillar (1 to i)

  • Pillar i Score = ∑(Sub-dimension Scores for Pillar i) /𝑛

where 𝑛 is the number of sub-dimensions in each category.

  1. Overall Scoring

    The final Community Trust Index score is the arithmetic mean of the Pillar scores available:

  • CTI Score = ∑(Pillar i Score)/N

where N is the number of pillars.

Metrics

Gender

Respondents by Gender
Gender Total Respondents Percentage (%)
Female 1078 63.8
Male 601 35.6
Other or did not answer 11 0.7
Total 1690 100.0

Age

Respondents by Age Group
Age Group Total Respondents Percentage (%)
18-29 485 28.7
30-39 381 22.5
40-49 293 17.3
50-59 222 13.1
60+ 309 18.3
Total 1690 100.0

Geographic

Respondents by Locality, District and Province
Province District Locality Total Respondents Percentage (%)
Gaza TOTAL TOTAL 438 100.0
Gaza Chigubo Ndindiza-sede 249 56.8
Gaza Chigubo Saute 189 43.2
Sofala TOTAL TOTAL 1252 100.0
Sofala Buzi Vila Sede 676 54.0
Sofala Buzi Estaquinha - Sede 576 46.0

Relationship with RC

Respondents by relationship with RC
Profile Total Respondents
Awareness of EWS equipment: Yes 987
Awareness of CLGRR: Yes 1294
Interaction with CLGRR: Yes 905

Weighting

Weighting vs. unweighting

To correct demographic deviations from the overall population, we applied a technique called raking. This method adjusts results based on variables such as age, gender, province, education level, and geographic (urban/rural) to align the sample with the population distribution. Data sources included the 2021 Nepal Population and Housing Census (Central Bureau of Statistics, https://censusnepal.cbs.gov.np/Home/Index/EN).

The weighted results are broadly consistent with the unweighted data, with only small variations across most dimensions. In both dissemination and response, the general trends remain unchanged, with effectiveness, feedback, and inclusiveness scoring higher, while participation and transparency lag behind. The largest differences appear in participation and transparency, where weighted scores are slightly lower than unweighted, suggesting that weighting reduces averages marginally but does not substantially change the overall performance patterns across dimensions.

Drivers Correlation

Correlation matrix

This chart presents the correlation between sub-dimensions of Warning Dissemination (left) and Response (right). Overall scores are strongly correlated with all sub-dimensions in both cases, confirming their consistency as composite measures. For Dissemination, the strongest internal link is between Effectiveness and Inclusiveness (0.61), while for Response, particularly strong correlations appear between Effectiveness, Participation, and Responsiveness (0.65–0.67). Transparency shows moderate but consistent correlations across both dimensions.

These results suggest that improvements in effectiveness, participation, and responsiveness are especially influential in shaping overall performance perceptions.

Significance testing

Significance testing

When testing for significant differences between groups, a t-test was used to compare mean scores across dissemination and response questions. The table summarizes whether differences between volunteers, beneficiaries, and others are statistically significant. Results show that, at a 95% confidence level with multiple-comparison correction, volunteers differ significantly from both beneficiaries and others across nearly all dimensions. Beneficiaries and others also show significant differences in most cases, except for awareness in dissemination and effectiveness in response, where no significant gap was observed.

Pillar Drivers Awareness of EWS equipment: Yes-Awareness of CLGRR: Yes Awareness of EWS equipment: Yes-Interaction with CLGRR: Yes Awareness of CLGRR: Yes-Interaction with CLGRR: Yes
Dissemination Awareness Yes No Yes
Dissemination Responsiveness No No No
Dissemination Effectiveness No No No
Dissemination Inclusiveness No No No
Dissemination Participation Yes No Yes
Dissemination Feedback Yes No Yes
Dissemination Transparency Yes No Yes
Response Awareness No No No
Response Responsiveness No No Yes
Response Participation Yes No Yes
Response Effectiveness Yes No Yes
Response Feedback Yes No Yes
Response Inclusiveness No No No
Response Transparency Yes No Yes