• Introduction to targeting
• How should I approach targeting?
• Targeting by level of vulnerability: Who is most vulnerable?
• Geographic Targeting:  Where do you find more OVC?
• How do I set constraints on the number of children assisted?
• How identify eligible children at the community level?
• What if community-based methods are not possible? 
• What about children outside family care?
• Is there a role for (public) institutions?

How do I identify eligible vulnerable children at the community level?

There are two main reasons for choosing a community-based selection procedure: first, it strengthens your ability to identify the children who are, indeed, most in need, and second, it strengthens community ownership of the intervention. However, community-based identification of beneficiary eligibility often works better in rural than in urban areas, mainly because people are likely to know each other better, there is a stable population and a certain level of group solidarity. Note that while this method is mostly used to target services to existing OVC, it can also be effective in identifying children (and therefore households) at risk, thus making it possible to provide preventive services.

Community-based identification of eligible OVC can be done using well defined eligibility criteria agreed upon before approaching the community, or using criteria produced through a community consultation process. A combination of the two approaches is often the best strategy, that is, you present some general criteria for debate, and then adjust them to local perceptions of need and vulnerability. The most participatory method is to consult community members at a public meeting. You would normally want to contract an NGO or a consultant to organize such public meetings and later verify the status of a sample of the children who appear on the list (this approach was used in the Burundi orphans integration and education program). An open public meeting is transparent: the public nature of the process helps limit the selection of non-OVC, since children’s status normally is well-known within the community. The open and transparent process can also help prevent favoritism toward members of a particular clan or ethnic group.

On the negative side, a public meeting may impart stigma to the children identified. Certain OVC who belong to already stigmatized categories (e.g., disabled children, street children who have rebelled against their parents, “cursed” children) may in fact not be identified at all, since community members may have very little sympathy for them. Hierarchy and rank within the community might also prevent some community members from speaking up in company of those of higher rank. For example, in some Muslim communities women may be reluctant to speak in the company of men, and certain families shamed by poverty or other types of stigma may face a similar barrier to speaking out in public.

While community-wide meetings may be quite unwieldy, a number of alternatives may help reduce the danger of stigmatization, allow for lower status groups to express their opinion, and, in general, make the process a bit lighter. These include:

(a)     holding the selection meeting only with women, who are arguably more knowledgeable about the situation of children, and have the resulting list of eligible OVC validated by the council of elders or the equivalent traditional authority to obtain buy-in;

(b)     have the community as a whole agree on criteria to select children, with the actual selection done by a committee (also selected by the community);

(c)     ask an existing community committee with elected membership to identify the children to be served by a program. The choices, however, will appear less transparent and there is more room for selection of children from among relatives and other favored groups.

Other local resource people could also be involved in identifying OVC, e.g., teachers, health personnel, “town criers” and other community workers. Identification by local religious and traditional leaders is a much-used targeting method, because religious and traditional leaders are often close to families in their communities and therefore well placed to help identify vulnerable children. Issues of equity could, however, arise since religious leaders could neglect children from other religious communities and traditional leaders may neglect children from other clans. A concrete example is Ghana, where a traditional women’s association called the Queen Mothers identifies children. Regardless of the approach taken, the implementing NGO or a consultant should verify the status of a sample of children on the list.