Kenya OVC-CT Programme Operational and Impact Evaluation

3.4.3 Coverage and leakageThe previous two sub-sections suggest that targeting effectiveness is being reduced by theallocation of recipients across districts and limited effectiveness in selecting the poorest OVChouseholds within each location.The net effect of these two problems is illustrated in the following table which presents variousestimates of coverage and leakage. The coverage estimates show the proportion of poor OVChouseholds that are benefiting from the programme, whereas the leakage estimates show theproportion of recipients that are above any given poverty line. The three poverty lines detailedabove are used.Table 3.5Poverty targeting – coverage and leakageCoverage of the poorest OVC households:Non-conditionallocationsConditionallocationsAll treatmentlocationsProportion of the poorest 21% of OVC households in programme locations who arerecipients (%) 2 25 24 24Proportion of OVC households living on less than $1 a day which are recipients (%) 3 25 26 26Proportion of OVC households living on less than $2 a day which are recipients (%) 24 21 22Leakage to non-poor OVC households:Proportion of recipients that are not within the poorest 21% of OVC households (%) 77 74 75Proportion of recipients living on more than $1 a day (%) 65 59 62Proportion of recipients living on more than $2 a day (%) 18 13 16N ( = # recipient households) 844 696 1,540Source: OPM OVC-CT evaluation baseline data (2007). Notes: (1) Leakage and coverage estimates do not have thesame denominator and are not expected to sum to 100%. (2) This translates to all those households with a real percapita consumption expenditure per adult equivalent of less than Ksh 917.4. (3) An income of $1 a day translates to areal consumption expenditure per adult equivalent of Ksh 1133.5 per month using the World Bank’s most recent PPPexchange rate (2005) adjusted for inflation since 2005.The key point to note from Table 3.5 is that only around one quarter of the poorest householdswere selected to benefit from the programme at the time of the baseline survey. This reflects thelimited coverage of the programme at that time (21% of households) due to budget constraints andthe fact the programme has not managed to focus the transfers on the poorest recipients. Thismeans that a large fraction of the poorest OVC households will not benefit from the programme.The subsequent enrolment of all eligible households will have increased coverage of the poorestafter the baseline, since it increased the coverage as a whole. However it is clear that the existingtargeting system is not very effective at ensuring that, for any given level of coverage, the poorestOVC households are selected.26