TARGETING FAMILIES AFFECTED BY HIV AND AIDS 45


and the role of women as the primary caregivers and thus the cash recipients, found that although there were some tensions with male partners over the Child Support Grant, for the most part the receipt of benefits by women was accepted without problems (Hunter and Adato 2007a). Responding to problems in FACT, Concern dedicated more staff resources


to the community triangulation process, improving accuracy but also increas- ing costs. The DECT baseline survey found that more than 90 percent of 509 beneficiary households were poor and food insecure, using a range of proxies (Brewin 2006, cited in Devereux et al. 2007). Several problems were also identified. First, the community-based wealth ranking identified the neediest within a community but not across communities, so the “middle groups” would be included in some. This had equity implications across communities. Second, because of a rush before the hungry season, some beneficiaries were asked to select others, leading to biases toward family members and debtors. The reduced transparency and inclusiveness of the process led to resentments between families. Third, wealth indicators were sometimes applied that were not appropriate—for example, the type of roofing material used on their dwelling excluded some—but this material may have been acquired long ago and the households may have been destitute since the male household head died. Third, some households were deleted when they did not show up for the targeting or registration process, although they may have been absent because of illness. Fourth, although Concern guidelines specify that each wife in a polygamous family should be registered separately, this often did not occur and wives were left out, receiving inadequate transfers or none. Oxfam’s cash transfer program in Malawi also used a community-based process with committees that had responsibility for targeting decisions but without formal checks and balances, and a number of additional risks were discovered with these methods. First, communities could decide whether to use existing committees or form new ones, and it appears that some commit- tees were cementing inequalities, leading to elite capture and inclusion errors. Second, there was confusion over concepts of vulnerability, and some rela- tively wealthy households that had taken in orphans or had ill members were using these criteria to justify their inclusion. Some areas were excluding people who did not have national registration cards, whereas the elderly, migrants, or people designated to pick up benefits on behalf of someone else might not have had them. Greater monitoring by Oxfam, along with more clarity and transparency with respect to the resources available and the num- bers of people who could be included, would have reduced targeting errors (Harvey and Marongwe 2006). Assessing targeting systems’ effectiveness in reaching AIDS-affected fami- lies is difficult because data will normally not indicate whether a household has someone living with AIDS or whether an orphan was orphaned by AIDS.


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