Targeted Inputs Programme (TIP) Findings of the Monitoring Component for TIP

TIP Monitoring- The findings Methodology Findings on: –Orientation –Registration –Voucher Distribution –Pack Distribution –Beneficiary Selection –Negative Impact of TIP

Methodology Twofold Approach 1. Interviews at District Level 2. Monitors trained and sent to 108 sites: four sites in each district Reliable data –Conclusions at National, Regional and by Distributor Group

Findings on Orientation, Registration and Voucher Distribution. District Task Forces well organised Area Task Forces non-existent Village Task Forces in 70% of cases Message reached Village Task Forces Tension and conflict reduced - all parties involved Registration carried out well, but unnecessarily complicated Voucher distribution adequate, but often heavily delayed and given to the wrong people

Findings on Orientation, Registration and Voucher Distribution. Recommendations: Involvement of all parties and direct briefing of V/H minimised conflict- but still more publicity required. Registration process could be considerably simplified and should be public Need time to establish working institutions ATFs should have a role in monitoring registration and distribution

Findings on Pack Distribution. –All distributors performed poorly –Distribution dates constantly changing and delayed –Disorderly behaviour on 25% of days –Vouchers seen as very helpful –ID not required on 35% of days –Many registered but arrived without vouchers (59% days) –Many arrived with vouchers, but not registered (33% days)

Findings on Pack Distribution. Recommendations/ Observations: Distributors must have realistic plans Distributors must communicate VTF members should be at distribution Vouchers should continue to be used Names of recipients should be written on vouchers Distribution sites should not be moved Security is vital

Findings on Beneficiary Selection. Did Poor People Actually Receive TIP? –The targeting of TIP towards the poorest families was not successful.

Why did TIP not reach the poorest? –Not due to the message failing –Focus on categories and not poverty –Corruption and nepotism by VTF

Recommendations –Message should be written and focus on poverty –Institutions should be elected & accountable –ATFs should monitor public selection

Negative Impact of TIP –Socially divisive impact of TIP –Negative Impact of TIP on voting –Negative Impact on participation in development activities –Must be weighed against benefits

Overall Conclusions District Assemblies worked well Community Targeting did not work Distribution was badly done TIP had a negative impact on Communities