Programs analyze the impact and cost-effectiveness of directly providing services to target populations, as compared to indirect activities that improve market conditions for all populations, including the target population. 7
Key Indicators (to be read in conjunction with the guidance notes):
- Targeting criteria should allow for the consideration of both direct and indirect activities when evaluating different programmatic interventions (see guidance note 1).
- Assistance provided to the target population, assures if possible, the sustainable provision of services and strengthened markets (see guidance notes 2).
- Programs justify strategies through causal models that describe how the target population will be positively benefited (see guidance note 3).
- Monitoring tools are developed to track impact on target population.8
Guidance Notes:
1. Targeting: The purpose of targeting is to ensure that economic recovery programs are impacting their intended target population. In developing targeting criteria, the criteria used should be sufficiently broad to allow for interventions that work both directly and indirectly with the targeted population, so as to not preclude certain types of activities.
In many cases, assistance to a target population can be channeled more effectively through indirect means such as: developing access to sustainable services that support the livelihoods of the target population (e.g. financial services, veterinary services, agriculture input supply, market linkages); an improved regulatory environment in the markets the provide the population’s main income source; or expanding the demand for products and services produced by the target population, rather than by an agency directly providing assistance to the target population itself.
A good assessment looking at the poverty level of the targeted population, the specific enterprises they work in, and the state of the industry in which the enterprises function will help to determine the best strategy to impact the targeted group. Targeted populations active in a value chain that has only been marginally impacted by the conflict or disaster, for example, may benefit most from assistance to other market actors in the same chain that spurs demand for the targeted population’s goods or services. In contrast, populations who have few assets and endeavor to restart activities or enter into new ones may be best served with a combination of direct assistance and assistance to others that can provide end markets for their goods and services.
Example: Seeds can be disbursed to vulnerable households by local traders via “seed fairs.” This use of an existing market mechanism strengthens linkages between vulnerable households and existing market actors, and avoids creating a parallel system that would hurt other market actors in the short term—leading to longer-term shortfalls once the assistance ended. Similarly, helping to create a competitive veterinary sector may have stronger impacts on raising the impacts of pastoralist households than assisting the families directly. (See Common Standard 3, Inclusive and Transparent Design and Implementation, for more details).
2. Exclusive targeting can be detrimental: The provision of services exclusively to one population may undermine the long-term sustainable delivery of services or reduce the effectiveness of assistance. For example, if a lending program only works with a narrowly defined target population this would decrease the number of potential clients in a given geographic area; thus rendering impossible the ability for a financial institution to do so sustainably. Similarly, poor households’ livelihoods do not exist in a vacuum. They interact with larger markets and are impacted by the trends in those markets and the behaviors and practices of the market actors with whom they interact. As a result, the benefits of assistance provided only to the target population may be limited or only temporary. For this reason, it is critical to understand the causal nature of markets through a quality market assessment.9 Finally, targeting one population to the exclusion of others may increase tensions and weaken important market linkages that are important to the targeted population’s success.
Example: Households engaged in agriculture may not be able to profit from improved seed and fertilizer unless there are first improvements in infrastructure or increased processing capacity among the agro processors that they sell to.
3. Causal models: All interventions, whether direct or indirect, require a clear causal models that outline how the target population will be impacted, and note the key assumptions underlying the model. This may be particularly important in the case of indirect targeting, where it may not be obvious how assistance to one group benefits the targeted group.10
Example: A program that aims to support handicraft producers through the provision of marketing assistance to agents in the regional capital should demonstrate how the different activities will lead to increased income for the producers.