The role of targeting in social protection programmes:

what have we learned so far?

Background Paper for the SOFA 2015

United Nations Development Programme – International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (UNDP/IPC-IG)

Targeting

- Maximizing programme impact - Social equality - Budget constraints

- Means Test (MT) - Proxy Means Test (PMT) - Categorical Targeting (CT) - Geographical Targeting (GT) - Community-Based Targeting (CBT) - Self-Targeting (ST)

- Administrative - Political - Private - Social - Incentive

- Design - Implementation

- Undercoverage and Leakage - CGH Index

Rationale

Methods

Costs

Phases

Performance measures

The Role of Targeting in Social Protection Programmes:

What have we learned so far?

What is Social Protection?

Social Protection is a set of policies and programmes that aim to prevent and protect people against poverty and

vulnerability and to promote social inclusion and equality of opportunities.

Social Protection can be provided through contributory or non-contributory programmes.

Targeting

Poor and vulnerable groups Rural population

Agriculture Interventions

76%

24%

Geographic distribution of extreme poor at global level

Rural area

Urban area

0%

20%

40%

60%

SSA SA EAP LAC MENA ECA Total

Share of the rural population below $1.25/day

In developing countries, social protection programmes and agriculture intervention tend to target the same population. The sinergies created by the jointly implementation of these two kinds of interventions boost the

impact produced on agricultural development and hunger erradication.

Social Protection programmes

Targeting as linkage between SP and Agriculture Interventions

Targeting as linkage between SP and Agriculture Interventions

Low income countries

prioritize these areas for the

implementation of SP programs

Rural population have less access to basic services

High concentration of extreme poverty

in rural areas

Rural population is exposed to

covariate shocks

Targeting as linkage between SP and Agriculture Interventions

Since these policies tend to target similar geographic areas and

population groups, they can potentially support each other

and create synergies.

Positive impact of some SP programs on beneficiaries’ investments in agricultural

assets and activities.

Agricultural interventions can positively affect

beneficiaries producing an impact on poverty and

vulnerability.

More costs More accuracy

A very accurate targeting strategy could better identify beneficiaries but at the same time could be really costly and divert resources that may be transferred to the poor.

Targeting Costs

• Administrative costs

• Political costs

• Private costs

• Social costs

• Incentive costs

Targeting is efficient if its costs are offset by the additional impact produced on the targeted group by a greater amount of benefits received or by an increase in

social equality.

The Costs of Targeting

Targeting

Phases

Implementation

Design • Identification of target population • Identification of elegibility criteria • Selection of targeting methods

• Identification of eligible households/individuals • Selection of actual beneficiaries

Programme Objectives

Targeting Methods

• Setting a threshold according to an observed income, consumption or asset indicator easily verified. Means Test

• Setting a threshold according to a score obtained taking into account and weighting different proxies of the household economic and social status or predictors of the per capita household expeenditures.

Proxy Means Test

• Selecting individuals , or households with individuals, belonging to a given social or age groups Categorical Targeting

• Selecting geographic areas according to a mapping of social and/or economic indicators Geographical Targeting

• Selecting eligible households or individuals through the assessment of community members and leaders

Community-Based Targeting

• Self-selecting application of households or individuals for participating into the programme Self-Targeting

Targeting Performance

Errors in Design and Implementation

Coady-Grosh-Hoddinott Index

Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries

Poor Non-Poor Poor Non-Poor

Respecting

eligibility criteria No error

Inclusion error in

design

Exclusion error in

implementation

Exclusion error in

implementation

Do not respecting

eligibility criteria

Inclusion error in

implementation

Inclusion error in

implementation

Exclusion error in

design No error

Share of benefits going to the poorest quintiles of the population

Challenges in Targeting Rural Population

• Income fluctuation due to agriculture seasonality

• Misreported self-consumption

• Migration rural-rural and rural-urban

• Difficulties in defining household structure

Data reliability

• Data collection in remote villages

• Monitoring targeting High costs

Questions

Is targeting able to reach the poorest?

What is the best strategy for reaching the poorest?

Is targeting able to reach the poorest? Case studies

Programme Country and Year of programme

Implementation

Type of programme

Productive Safety Net Programme

(PSNP)

Ethiopia, 2005 Public work and Unconditional

Cash/Kind transfer

Social Cash Transfer Pilot Program

(SCTPP)

Ethiopia,2011 Unconditional Cash Transfer

Livelihood Empowerment Against

Poverty Program (LEAP)

Ghana, 2008 Unconditional/Conditional Cash

Transfer (depending on the category

of beneficiaries)

(including health insurance)

Lesotho Child Grants Programme

(CGP)

Lesotho, 2009 Unconditional Cash Transfer

Multiple Category Cash Transfer

Program (MCP)

Zambia, 2011 Unconditional Cash Transfer

Kenya Cash Transfer for Orphans and

Vulnerable Children (CTOVC)

Kenya, 2004 Unconditional Cash Transfer

Malawi Social Cash Transfer Scheme

(SCT)

Malawi, 2006 Unconditional Cash Transfer

Mozambique’s Programa Subsídio

de Alimentos (PSA)

Mozambique, 1993 Unconditional Cash Transfer

Is targeting able to reach the poorest? Targeting Performance

CGH Index

(Mean score of all

programmes)

CGH Index

(Cash Transfers only)

122 programmes Coady et

al. (2004)

1.22

1.80

Programme

Targeting Method

CGH Index

(Full sample)

CGH Index

(Eligible sample only)

Ethiopia PSNP GT, CT and CBT 1.40

Ethiopia PSNP

(DS only)

GT, CT and CBT 1.37

Ethiopia PSNP

(PW only)

GT, CT and CBT 1.94

Ghana LEAP GT, CT, CBT and PMT 1.87 1.86

Lesotho CGP PMT and CBT 1.48

Kenya CT-OVC GT, CBT, PMT and CT 1.29 3.67

Malawi SCTS GT, CBT, and CT 3.68 2.72

Mozambique PSA CBT and CT 2.13 1.73

The selected programmes are able to reach the poorest two quintile of the population better than a random allocation.

What is the best strategy for reaching the poorest? A focus on Rural Areas

• Low reliability of data in rural areas Means Test

• Able to capture context-based characteristics of rural and urban areas but it requires the collection of a huge amount of data Proxy Means Test

• Based on easily observable characteristics that do not require the collection of a large amount of data but the correlation between each characteristic and poverty depends on the local context

Categorical Targeting

• Able to identify poor rural areas when there is unequal distribution of poor across areas and high concentration of them within areas, as in the case of remote rural areas with lack of access to basic services

Geographical Targeting

• Able to capture local specificity and to benefit by the high level of social capital within rural communities but could perpetuate the marginalization of stigmatized groups

Community-Based Targeting

• Able to capture local needs if it respects agricultural seasonality and takes into account differences between needs and tastes of rural and urban populations . Could discourage individuals to apply if registration centers are located far from rural areas

Self-Targeting

What is the best strategy for reaching the poorest?

The answer cannot be found in a predetermined package of methods:

Usually a sequence of several methods is implemented in order to capture different dimensions related to poverty.

The choice about targeting mechanisms depends on: type of programme; context-related costs and benefits; cultural norms; and heterogeneity in deprivation dimensions across countries, areas (rural/urban) and social groups.

Each strategy involves several strengths and weaknesses strictly affected by: administrative capacity; quality of data; areas of implementation; and by the methodological choices, made during the design phase, about the representative dimensions of poverty and deprivation.

Some method, such as the Community-Based Targeting and the Proxy Means Test, by design allow to capture specific context-based features and differences across groups.

Thanks for your attention