Targeting the Poorest with One Verification Visit
A national cash transfer programme is being expanded to a rural district of 18,000 households. Officials propose using a proxy means test based on housing materials, livestock ownership and school attendance. Community leaders object that the poorest include landless labourers who live in relatively sturdy houses owned by relatives, and that women fleeing domestic violence are invisible because they are not registered as household heads. A local NGO reports that households with a disabled member face costs about 35% above average but are not captured by the formula. The district has 2,100 households below the national poverty line, but the programme can cover only 1,500. The ministry wants a transparent, defensible targeting method within six weeks and has budget for one verification visit per household.
1. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed proxy means test for targeting the poorest 1,500 households.
Read the worked answer
Strengths: a proxy means test is relatively objective, quick to apply and can be verified in one visit. It reduces favouritism because scorecards can be public, and it allows households to be ranked within a fixed budget.
The weaknesses are serious. Housing materials and livestock measure assets, not vulnerability. A landless labourer living in a relative's sturdy house may score as non-poor, while a household that sold livestock after an illness may also be missed. The formula ignores the extra costs of disability, although the NGO estimates these at 35% above average. It also assumes a registered male household head, so women fleeing violence and unregistered tenants may be invisible. Low school attendance can reflect costs rather than a lack of poverty.
With 2,100 poor households and 1,500 places, the test will produce exclusion errors no matter how accurate it is. One verification visit cannot resolve complex household histories. The method is defensible only if combined with categorical and community information and an appeals process.
2. Design a hybrid targeting process that fits the six-week and one-visit constraints, and explain how it would reduce exclusion.
Read the worked answer
Use a hybrid process. First, categorically include households with a disabled member, female-headed households without male support, and displaced women, subject to verification. Second, apply the proxy means test to rank the remaining households within each village, not across the whole district, so local price and asset differences do not distort rankings. Third, hold a community validation meeting to review the draft list and flag known vulnerable households missed by the formula, recording the reasons.
The single verification visit can confirm residency, household composition, disability and whether a house is owned or borrowed. Publish the criteria and final list, and run a short appeals window through the district office. Reserve perhaps 15% of places for appeals and categorical cases.
This reduces exclusion because it does not rely on one proxy, gives the community a role without letting it override transparent rules, and remains feasible within six weeks. It also makes the trade-off between accuracy and speed explicit.
3. What should the ministry do about the gap between 2,100 poor households and only 1,500 programme places?
Read the worked answer
The ministry must choose whether to ration by rank, phase the programme, or seek more funds. A defensible approach is to publish the gap, phase enrolment over two budgets, and prioritise the most vulnerable using categorical criteria plus the proxy score. It should not simply cut the bottom 600 by score, because that may exclude disabled and displaced households.
It can also adjust transfer size: a smaller transfer to more households may reduce extreme poverty less than a larger transfer to the poorest 1,500. The ministry should model both options and state its objective, whether maximising the number reached or closing the poverty gap. It should negotiate a top-up with the finance ministry and development partners, and publish the waiting list.
If funds cannot be found, a transparent phased rollout with an appeal mechanism is better than an opaque cut. The key judgement is that targeting is not only technical; it involves a political choice about who is left out.