Kenya OVC-CT Programme Operational and Impact Evaluation

are likely to pass the test, and two thirds of the households identified as eligible fall above the $1per day poverty line.Table 3.8 Design leakage and potential coverage of poor OVC households intreatment locationsPotential coverage of the poorest OVC households: 2Non-conditionallocationsConditionallocationsAll treatmentlocationsProportion of the poorest 21% of OVC households in treatment locations whichmeet the programme’s eligibility criteria (%) 2 100 100 100Proportion of OVC households living on less than $1 a day which meet theprogramme’s eligibility criteria (%) 3 98 100 99Proportion of OVC households living on less than $2 a day which meet theprogramme’s eligibility criteria (%) 97 98 98Design leakage:Proportion of eligible households that are not within the poorest 21% of OVChouseholds (%) 77 78 78Proportion of eligible households living on more than $1 a day (%) 66 68 67Proportion of eligible households living on more than $2 a day (%) 16 20 18N = # eligible households (unweighted) 925 768 1,693Source: OPM OVC-CT evaluation baseline data (2007).Table 3.9 below assesses why the eligibility criteria do not successfully identify the poorest OVChouseholds within each treatment location, by assessing how much they are associated withpoverty. It shows that there is significant scope for improving them.Some of the poverty indicators perform badly in the sense that almost no OVC households displaythis characteristic, in particular Indicator 6 (mud/cow dung roof). Others perform badly in the sensethat almost all households across all five quintiles exhibit this characteristic, e.g. Indicator 17 (ownno camels). Others perform badly because there is no clear pattern in the variation better thepoorest and better off groups. 29The average poverty score is over ten, suggesting that increasing the score required to beclassified as poor by the programme (currently eight) might improve the targeting. However, thecombination of these characteristics in line with the programme’s selection rules shows only a veryweak relationship with households (relative) consumption levels. In other words, the programmeshould re-assess the poverty targeting criteria that it uses.29 Note that many of these characteristics do show a relationship with consumption levels across thepopulation as a whole (see Annex C), so their selection for use by the programme is understandable.However, much of this is due to variation between locations; they do not differentiate households withinlocations very successfully, which is what is required of them here.30