@article{fdi:010067613,
  title = {{T}argeting vulnerable households in urban {B}urkina {F}aso : effectiveness of geographical criteria but not of proxy-means testing},
  author = {{F}ortin, {S}onia and {K}ameli, {Y}ves and {O}uattara, {A}. and {C}astan, {F}lorence and {P}erenze, {M}. {L}. and {K}ankouan, {J}. and {T}raore, {A}. and {K}ouanda, {S}. and {C}onte, {A}. and {M}artin-{P}r{\'e}vel, {Y}ves},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{T}he 2007/2008 food prices hike has increased the interest in social safety nets programmes to fight food insecurity. {T}argeting the most in need is central to achieve effectiveness of such interventions. {I}n 2009 in {O}uagadougou, {B}urkina {F}aso, a food voucher ({FV}) programme targeted the 25 000 most vulnerable households (8.3% of the population). {T}argeting used a two-stage process: first geographical selection of poorest districts (similar to 90 000 households); then, in those districts, identification of the most vulnerable households according to a proxy-means test ({PMT}). {T}argeted households were entitled to receive {FV} for 1 year. {A} first survey was conducted at the beginning of the {FV} distribution on a representative sample of 2273 households drawn from the poorest districts. {O}ne year later a second survey, conducted on a subsample of same households (n = 901), identified those who actually received {FV} (beneficiary). {T}he performance of the whole process was assessed against household food expenditure, used as the reference measure for vulnerability with a cut-off point of 1513 {FCFA} (corresponding to the 8.3th percentile of the distribution of expenditure). {T}he 'normalized share of transfers going to vulnerable households' ({NSTVH}), i.e. proportion of {FV}s allocated to households below the cut-point, was the main criteria of judgement. {A}lmost twice as many {FV} were allocated to vulnerable households as compared with a theoretical random distribution all over {O}uagadougou ({NSTVH} = 1.85). {W}hen considering the sole targeted districts the {NSTVH} was only 0.84 (i.e. no more effective than a random distribution), meaning that the geographical stage was effective to select vulnerable districts while the {PMT} did not perform well to identify the most vulnerable households in those districts. {R}esults could have been improved if only targeted households had received {FV} ({NSTVH} = 2.61 and 1.18 for the whole {O}uagadougou and targeted districts, respectively). {I}mproved targeting procedures or alternate targeting instruments are needed.},
  keywords = {{S}ocial safety nets ; {W}est {A}frica ; food voucher ; geographical targeting ; proxy-means testing ; {BURKINA} {FASO}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{H}ealth {P}olicy and {P}lanning},
  volume = {31},
  numero = {5},
  pages = {573--581},
  ISSN = {0268-1080},
  year = {2016},
  DOI = {10.1093/heapol/czv104},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010067613},
}