TARGETING FAMILIES AFFECTED BY HIV AND AIDS 43


or the presence of orphans and other vulnerable children (defined as double or single orphans) living without adults (child-headed households) or with a disabled person. The household also cannot be receiving any other program benefits. Location OVC committees (LOCs) meet with village elders and com- munity leaders to collect information on households that may be eligible based on these criteria. A preliminary form is filled out on a potential benefi- ciary household and entered into a computerized MIS. Enumerators visit the household and fill out a detailed questionnaire, and this new information is entered into the MIS, which ranks the households. Households are classified as high, medium, or low vulnerability, depending on whether they have one, two, or three of the following characteristics: (1) at least one orphan under age eighteen; (2) a household head under age eighteen; (3) at least one child, parent, or guardian who is chronically ill (with an easily identifiable illness, for example, AIDS). The ranking is reviewed in a public meeting and question- able cases sent for review by the LOC, supported by the District OVC Sub- Committee (Kenya, OVPMHA 2006). Malawi’s Food and Cash Transfers Project (FACT) and Dowa Emergency


Cash Transfer (DECT) program used a method different from those already described. A “community triangulation” method divided communities into three groups and asked each to make a list of the neediest households. Cri- teria were defined by each community, although Concern Worldwide field staff and committees provided some guidance. Although FACT was supposed to respond mainly to the food crisis, some of the criteria steered communities toward people affected by AIDS: households with chronically ill members; households headed by orphans, elderly, or people with disabilities; house- holds involved in Concern’s Outpatient Therapeutic Programme; households receiving Concern agricultural input loans; and households facing severe hun- ger (one meal per day) and not receiving food aid from another source. The three groups’ lists were compared in a public forum, and those appearing on all three lists were included, while those appearing on one or two lists were discussed and a consensus reached. This had the advantage of avoiding the nepotism and favoritism that may accompany selection by a powerful individual or elite group, such as a village committee (Devereux, Mvula, and Solomon 2006).


Findings on Community-Based Targeting Processes Interesting qualitative studies of the community-based targeting processes were carried out for the FACT and DECT programs (Devereux, Mvula, and Solo- mon 2006; Devereux et al. 2007). The community triangulation method used in the Malawi FACT process was found to be a good system where it was used as planned, but there were many problems in implementation. First, the meth-


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200  |  Page 201  |  Page 202  |  Page 203  |  Page 204  |  Page 205  |  Page 206  |  Page 207  |  Page 208  |  Page 209  |  Page 210  |  Page 211  |  Page 212  |  Page 213  |  Page 214  |  Page 215  |  Page 216  |  Page 217  |  Page 218  |  Page 219  |  Page 220  |  Page 221  |  Page 222  |  Page 223  |  Page 224  |  Page 225  |  Page 226  |  Page 227  |  Page 228  |  Page 229  |  Page 230  |  Page 231  |  Page 232  |  Page 233  |  Page 234  |  Page 235  |  Page 236  |  Page 237