Two sample Keheles of Tach Gayint Woreda were randomly selected by 10ttelY methodrnwir/iout replacement /i'om six potential Keheles producing this crop, to explore therncontribution of cultivating haricot bean to rural household food security. 100 samplernhouseholds were randomly selected for the study. Of these, 5% of cultiva/ors and noncultrnivators were selected Fom the total in each sample Kebeles. Thus, 59 samplerncultivators and 41 non-cultivators were taken out randomly by proportionate simplern/'Ul1do/1/ sampling technique using lottery method without replacement respectively.rnPril1ullY data was gathered via household interview, key informant interview, focusrngroup discussion and field observation. Moreover, primary da/a was supplemen/ed withrnsecondwy data obtained Fom different sources. Data was analyzed by using SPSSrncomputer sojiware. Cultivators of haricot bean were found to be better in their foodrnsecuri/y status than the non-cultivators. The crop output obtained by cultivators wasrnhigher than the non-cuitiva/ors simply because of gelling addi/ional ou/put Fom harico/rnbean. On average, cultivators of haricot bean obtained 7,219.40 Birrlhousehold/yearrnFo", this crop as compared to the non-cultivators who lacked this opportunity. Thernavailable kilocalorie/person/day from own production was found to be 568153 forrncultivators and 81998 for non-cultivators. Th e share of haricot bean Fom all croprnO!ilputs to income and available kilocalorie of households was found to be 56.6% andrn35. 1% respectivelv Taking the 2200 kilocalorie/adult equivalent/day, which is the benchrnlIIark of measuring food security, cultivators and non-cultivators of haricot bean fulfilledrn011 Iv 70.8% allrl 10. 2% of/he minimum kilocalorie requiremen/ respectively. However, i/rnwas idelltified Ihat own production was 1I0t sufficient enough to bring up households Fomrnfood insecurity. But, households were participated in different non-farm incomerngellerating activities such as the food and cash for work activities via the Produc/ivernSafety Net Program. Therefore, cultivators and non-cultivators had obtainedrn430144(42.4%) and 408172(50.8%) kilocalories/person/day Fom this food for workrnrespectively. Similarly, from all the non-farm activities both types of households hadrnobtained 5, 798.50 Birr and 6,301.00 Birr in that order. Cultivators had fulfilled morernthan their minimum calorie requirement (113%) and non-cultivators fulfi lled only 61 %.rnHowever, still there are households who are unable to cover even a quarter of their dailyrnkilocalorie intake and income requirement. Insec/ p ests; shor/age of rainfall; hail/snow;rnlack of farm lalld; lack of extellsion package support and improved seeds were reducingrnproduction and productivity of haricot bean in the area. Thus, employ ing extensionrnpackage policies; provision of early ma/uring, moisture tolerant and insect pest resistantrnimproved seed varieties; application of suitable moisture conserving activities;rnillFastructural developments; creating more labor based non-farm income generatingrnactivities and others are possible areas of intervention to improve food security ofrnhouseholds of the study area