44 CHAPTER 3


odology was not strictly applied in some areas, where Concern staff influ- enced the choice of criteria. In one area, for example, 75 percent of house- holds were selected because of their caring for orphans or the elderly, a disability, or their health status. This might be considered successful as a method for targeting families affected by AIDS, but this was not the inten- tion of the program, which was aimed at responding to a weather-based food emergency. Second, some areas received the message that Concern liveli- hoods program participants were to be included so they could repay their loans, and these were not the most needy households. Third, in some places quotas were imposed by headquarters, requiring cuts in the list, which con- tradicted the principle of inclusion based on self-assessed need. Fourth, the most vulnerable households may not have participated in the selection pro- cess because they did not have the time or were out of the village, looking for work, or in the hospital. Fifth, influential elites such as village head- men or their wives managed to find their way into the program. Sixth, poor coordination within the program and across programs meant that some fami- lies received double benefits while some received none. In the program evaluation, Devereux, Mvula, and Solomon (2006) recom-


mend that the community triangulation method be used as intended, empha- sizing the importance of using the community’s own criteria of vulnerability and need, and that all community members be encouraged to actively par- ticipate in the process. They make the controversial but wise recommenda- tion that errors of exclusion be taken as a greater problem than errors of inclusion, with a margin of about 10 percent given for errors of inclusion, allowing the inclusion of some non-needy or politically influential people; they argue that this is a small price to pay in order to ensure that desperate people are not left out. The FACT evaluation also suggests giving the benefits to women rather than men (women sometimes asked Concern staff for this change) to minimize risk of irresponsible spending (although there was little evidence of irresponsible spending by men), to avoid disadvantaging women in polygamous households, and to use female-headed households as a proxy for vulnerability. Although Devereux, Mvula, and Solomon (2006) raise the possibility that this might generate intrahousehold tensions, given that men tend to control cash resources, on balance they recommend this approach. Evidence from CCTs in Mexico and Nicaragua shows that although some ten- sions arose as a result of designating women as beneficiaries, on balance women and men alike favored giving the benefits to women because they both believed that women make better spending decisions and because the program had come to be seen as a women’s and children’s program, so giving women the benefits was less threatening to men’s identity as the bread- winner (Adato and Mindek 2000; Adato and Roopnaraine 2010b). A study of the Child Support Grant in South Africa, which looked at intrahousehold dynamics


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