Fortin Sonia, Kameli Yves, Ouattara Ali, Castan Florence, Perenze Maria L, Kankouan Justine, Traore Alladari, Kouanda Seni, Conte Annalisa, Martin-Prével Yves
UMR 204 Nutripass Nutrition et Alimentation des Populations aux Suds (IRD-UM2-UM1), Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Montpellier, France,
UMR 204 Nutripass Nutrition et Alimentation des Populations aux Suds (IRD-UM2-UM1), Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Montpellier, France.
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Jun;31(5):573-81. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czv104. Epub 2015 Oct 29.
The 2007/2008 food prices hike has increased the interest in social safety nets programmes to fight food insecurity. Targeting the most in need is central to achieve effectiveness of such interventions. In 2009 in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, a food voucher (FV) programme targeted the 25 000 most vulnerable households (8.3% of the population). Targeting used a two-stage process: first geographical selection of poorest districts (∼90 000 households); then, in those districts, identification of the most vulnerable households according to a proxy-means test (PMT). Targeted 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. One year later a second survey, conducted on a subsample of same households (n = 901), identified those who actually received FV (beneficiary). The 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). The 'normalized share of transfers going to vulnerable households' (NSTVH), i.e. proportion of FVs allocated to households below the cut-point, was the main criteria of judgement. Almost twice as many FV were allocated to vulnerable households as compared with a theoretical random distribution all over Ouagadougou (NSTVH = 1.85). When 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. Results could have been improved if only targeted households had received FV (NSTVH = 2.61 and 1.18 for the whole Ouagadougou and targeted districts, respectively). Improved targeting procedures or alternate targeting instruments are needed.
2007/2008年的食品价格上涨使人们对旨在应对粮食不安全问题的社会安全网计划的兴趣大增。针对最需要帮助的人群是此类干预措施取得成效的关键。2009年，在布基纳法索的瓦加杜古，一项食品券计划针对了25000个最脆弱的家庭（占人口的8.3%）。目标定位采用了两阶段程序：首先从地理上挑选最贫困的地区（约90000户家庭）；然后，在这些地区，根据代理手段测试（PMT）确定最脆弱的家庭。目标家庭有权在1年内领取食品券。在食品券发放初期，对从最贫困地区抽取的2273户家庭的代表性样本进行了首次调查。一年后，对同一家庭的子样本（n = 901）进行了第二次调查，确定了实际领取食品券的家庭（受益人）。以家庭食品支出作为脆弱性的参考衡量标准，设定了1513非洲金融共同体法郎的临界点（对应支出分布的第8.3百分位数），以此评估整个过程的绩效。“分配给脆弱家庭的转移支付的标准化份额”（NSTVH），即分配给临界点以下家庭的食品券比例，是主要的判断标准。与在瓦加杜古进行的理论随机分配相比，分配给脆弱家庭的食品券几乎是其两倍（NSTVH = 1.85）。仅考虑目标地区时，NSTVH仅为0.84（即并不比随机分配更有效），这意味着地理阶段在挑选脆弱地区方面是有效的，而代理手段测试在确定这些地区最脆弱家庭方面表现不佳。如果只有目标家庭领取食品券，结果可能会有所改善（整个瓦加杜古和目标地区的NSTVH分别为2.61和1.18）。需要改进目标定位程序或采用替代的目标定位工具。
