The current paper was designed to study the dimensions and determinants of rural householdrnpoverty in Itang special dislricl of Gambella National Regional State of Western Ethiopia.rnRural household poverty is usually determined by socio-economic, demographic, institutionalrnand natural factors including vulnerabilities to disaster risks.rnThe study focuses on fealures and jixtors determining household poverty in three ruralrnkebeles, where the Annuak and Nuer ethnic groups reside. A total of 89 households drawnrnJi'om lIang kir, Pukumu and Badel Kebele Administrations were involved in the study. Thernmelhodology employed in Ihis sludy includes descriptive statistics and explanatory analysisrnbased on Ihe data collecled Ihrough qualilalive and quantitative methods. In particular,rnhousehold survey, focus group discussion as well as key informanl interview were used asrnpart of collecling primary in/ormalioll. 71,e Cost of Basic Needs approach was employed tornset a poverty line. Besides, Ihe Fosler Greek Thorbecke method of poverty indices wasrnemployed to find out the level. incidence and severity of poverty among the poor and nonpoorrncategories of the stuc6! households.rnThis study showed the absolute poverty line of the households is Birr 1662.65 with the foodrnpoverty line of Birr 1334.96. Based on the findings, Ihe total head count index is 0.438 whichrnmeans 43.8 percent of the sampled households fall under the poverty line. It also indicatedrnIhat the per capita consull1pl ion expendilure distrib ution, non-jood expenditure per AEU ofrnsample households, educational, age and sex of sampled household heads varied for poorrnand non-poor at less than 1% slolislical level. There is a significant differences in povertyrnlevel among the poor and non poor sampled households in terms of factors such as the size ofrncultivated land, remillances, assel possession, income Ji'om off-jarm and/or livestock. On therncontrary, the poor study households have relatively low average family size, low dependencyrnratio and fewer hours of walking distance 10 market as compared to the non-poor; and thusrnIhe findings do not sup pori the assumplion stated in the research hypotheses. Based on thernlogit regression model 01.11 put, Ihe study revealed that the total households' income wasrnsignificant at less than 1% probability level. Household size and household head age werernfound to be significant al less Ihan 5 % while remittance and distance to the markets werernsignificant at less than 10 % probabililY le vel. The remaining two variables, namely overallrndependency ratio and access 10 exlension service were not statistically significant.rnA1eanwhile, the current slucO, ./iJUnd out thai recurring hazards such as inter ethnic conflictrnand floods which quickly turned in to disaster and subsequently incapacitates households 'rnresilience and contributes in keeping fhe sludy households and communities under the viciousrncycle of poverty. Practices of social obligalions like excessive dowry payment, sharing ofrnhousehold resource as well as alcohollSl/1 and disruptions of social cultural assets causedrnF ont a myriad of internal and exlernal ji:lctars were found disincentive for saving andrninvestment thereby contrihules ils own share in exacerbating the overall living conditions.rnThis paper concludes by p/'Oposing a range of short-term and long-term intervention optionsrnto reduce poverty among poor households. Among others, the study highlights the need tornconsider policy and programs Ihal seeks 10 address the structural causes of poverty and itsrnvulnerabilities to attain food sell sufficiency at household level thereby ultimately reducernpoverty and ils manifestations among Ihe population in the study district.