Community Based and Mixed Targeting on Performance of Cash Transfer Projects in Baidoa District, Somalia

Cash transfers serve as vital tools for social protection, but their effectiveness depends significantly on the precision of beneficiary targeting. The research specifically evaluates the influence of community-based, geographical, mixed, and self-targeting mechanisms on project outcomes. Employing the social capital, social interdependence, and rational action theories, the study underscores the value of social networks, mutual support, and rational decision-making in effective targeting. This study targeted 58 respondents from 18 cash transfer projects in Baidoa, including project managers, monitoring and evaluation officers, government representatives, and donor representatives. The findings reveal that community based targeting (α = 0.123, p-value > 0.05), and mixed targeting (α = 0.120, p-value > 0.05) approaches positively but non-significantly influence cash transfer projects. From the study, community based targeting and mixed targeting positively influence project performance, though not significantly. While each targeting approach contributes to project success, an integrated strategy combining multiple methods enhances accuracy and effectiveness. This approach mitigates the limitations of individual methods by leveraging their collective strengths. Future cash transfer projects should adopt a broad-based targeting mechanism that is adaptable to the specific situational and contextual dynamics of the project environment. Such a strategy is crucial for ensuring that the most vulnerable populations receive the intended benefits, thereby improving the overall impact of humanitarian interventions in fragile contexts like Somalia.

Introduction

Cash transfer interventions have gained significant traction worldwide as effective tools for social protection and poverty alleviation. These programs provide financial assistance directly to individuals or households, allowing them to cover their basic needs, protect their livelihoods, and recover from economic shocks or disasters (Devereuxet al., 2015). The increasing volume of cash transfers globally underscores their growing importance. In 2019, cash transfer programs distributed approximately USD 5.6 billion, reflecting a robust endorsement by governments and international organizations (CALP, 2020). One of the primary reasons for the widespread adoption of cash transfer programs is their flexibility and efficiency. Unlike in-kind assistance, which involves the distribution of food, medicine, or clothing, cash transfers empower recipients to make their own spending decisions. This autonomy is crucial for maintaining the dignity of beneficiaries and ensuring that the aid meets their specific needs. Studies have shown that cash transfers significantly improve food security, health outcomes, and educational attainment particularly in middle-income and low-income countries (Arnoldet al., 2011).

The concept of cash transfers is not new; it has evolved over decades with changing socio-economic landscapes and technological advancements. In the early 20th century, social safety nets were primarily in the form of in-kind aid provided by charitable organizations and governments. However, the inefficiencies and limitations of in-kind assistance led to a gradual shift towards more flexible aid forms. By the 1980s and 1990s, many countries had started experimenting with cash transfer programs, with notable success in Latin America through initiatives like Brazil’s Bolsa Família and Mexico’s Progresa/Oportunidades (Fiszbeinet al., 2009). These early programs provided crucial lessons and insights regarding the overall designing and execution of cash transfers, highlighting the importance of targeting mechanisms, conditionality, and integration with broader social protection systems. The achievement of these programs in reducing poverty besides improving human capital outcomes, spurred a global movement towards cash-based assistance supported by international organizations such as the World Bank and the United Nations.

In recent years, the use of cash transfers has expanded beyond traditional social protection frameworks to humanitarian contexts. Humanitarian cash transfers are structured to provide immediate relief to individuals affected by crises such as conflicts, natural disasters, and economic shocks. These programs aim to address urgent needs, such as food, shelter, and healthcare, while also contributing to the recovery and resilience of affected populations (Harvey & Bailey, 2011). The success of cash transfers in humanitarian settings has been well-documented. For instance, evaluations of cash transfer programs in response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake and the 2011 Horn of Africa drought demonstrated their ability to deliver timely and flexible assistance, reduce negative coping strategies, and stimulate local economies (Doocy & Tappis, 2017). These findings have led to an increased adoption of cash-based interventions in humanitarian responses globally.

Somalia presents a unique and challenging environment for the implementation of cash transfer programs. The country has experienced decades of conflict, political instability, and recurrent climate shocks such as droughts and floods, which have contributed to widespread poverty and humanitarian crises. According to the United Nations, more than half of Somalia’s population requires humanitarian assistance, and nearly 3 million people are internally displaced (OCHA, 2021). Humanitarian assistance plays a critical role in Somalia, providing lifesaving support to millions of people. International organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and local agencies deliver a range of services, including food aid, healthcare, education, and protection. Cash transfer programs have become a vital component of this assistance, offering a flexible and dignified way to support vulnerable populations (World Food Programme (WFP), 2016). However, delivering humanitarian aid in Somalia is fraught with challenges. Insecurity, restricted access, and the threat of attacks on aid workers complicate operations, leading to significant security risks and logistical hurdles (Human Rights Watch, 2019).

Given the multifaceted nature of Somalia’s fragility, the National Development Plan (NDP) emphasizes the role of social protection systems in building resilience and promoting sustainable development. Cash transfer programs have been identified as the key strategy within the broader social protection framework. These programs aim to alleviate the immediate effects of poverty by providing financial assistance to the most vulnerable, including those living in extreme poverty, women-headed households, and internally displaced persons (IDPs) (NRC, 2020).

Cash transfer programs in Somalia have shown promising results in enhancing food security, improving health and education outcomes, and promoting economic stability. For instance, evaluations of cash-based interventions during the 2017 drought demonstrated that recipients were able to purchase food, pay off debts, and invest in small businesses, thereby reducing undesirable coping strategies such as selling-off assets (Somali Cash Consortium, 2019). As such, Somalia’s fragility context presents a unique set of challenges for the implementation of cash transfer programs. The interplay of protracted conflict, political instability, economic hardship, and recurrent natural disasters creates a complex environment that requires adaptive and innovative approaches to the implementation of social protection cash transfer programs. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for designing and implementing effective targeting mechanisms that can enhance the performance of cash transfer programs and support the resilience and recovery of vulnerable populations in Somalia.

The success of cash transfer programs heavily depends on the accuracy and efficiency of their targeting approaches. Targeting is the process of identifying and selecting beneficiaries who are most in need of assistance. Effective targeting ensures that resources are allocated to those who need them most, minimizing both inclusion errors where non-poor and undeserving households receive benefits and exclusion errors where the poor households and deserving households do not receive the benefits (Coadyet al., 2004). However, all forms of targeting encompasses some form of trade-offs, and the chosen approach depends on the intended projects objectives, characteristics of the beneficiaries, information availability, institutional capacity, and political correctness and acceptability of the project (DFID, 2011).

Targeting approaches depends on the context of the project, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach, with most programs attaining optimal results by blending targeting mechanisms (Azevedo & Robles, 2013; DFID, 2011). In the context of Somalia, where resources are limited and the needs are immense, effective targeting is crucial. Misallocation of resources can exacerbate existing vulnerabilities and undermine the credibility of aid programs. Therefore, understanding and improving targeting mechanisms is essential for enhancing the impact of cash transfer programs in Somalia.

Community-based targeting (CBT) involves local community members and agents in identifying and selecting beneficiaries based on their knowledge of who is most in need (Conning & Kevane, 2002). This approach leverages local insights and social networks, making it potentially more accurate and cost-effective. However, it can also be susceptible to biases and local power dynamics. Studies by Faguet (2004) and Yamauchi (2010) support the effectiveness of CBT in accurately identifying the poor and minimizing administrative costs, but also highlight risks of elite capture and favoritism. In the Somali context, this targeting has been used in various humanitarian and development programs. For example, the World Food Programme (WFP) has implemented CBT in its food assistance programs, where community committees are involved in the selection of beneficiaries. While this approach has been praised for its inclusiveness and local ownership, challenges such as clan dynamics and social tensions have been noted (World Food Programme (WFP), 2016).

Mixed targeting combines different methods to improve the accuracy and efficiency of beneficiary selection. By integrating community-based and geographical targeting, programs can capitalize on the strengths of both methods while mitigating their individual weaknesses. Acosta and Olfindo (2016) have shown that mixed targeting can enhance transparency and accuracy, though they may face challenges in effectively reaching all intended beneficiaries. The Indonesian social safety net programs are an example where mixed targeting helped address both traditional and crisis-induced poverty (Sumartoet al., 2010). In Somalia, mixed targeting has been explored in several initiatives. For example, the Somali Cash Consortium has implemented a mixed targeting strategy in its cash transfer programs, combining geographical data with community validation processes. This approach has shown promise in improving targeting accuracy and acceptance among beneficiaries (Somali Cash Consortium, 2019).

Years of conflict and recurrent shocks in Somalia have led to a humanitarian crisis affecting all population groups, with significant gaps in healthcare, housing, education, and access to essential non-food items. The Somali social protection policy aims to address these needs, providing avenues for vulnerable populations to overcome their challenges and transition towards stability and economic prosperity. However, the effectiveness of these policies hinges on the performance of cash transfer projects, which depend significantly on how accurate and efficient the targeting approach is. Despite the extensive implementation of cash transfer programs, there is limited understanding of how these targeting mechanisms align with the socio-economic dynamics of highly vulnerable populations in conflict-affected areas. Most studies on cash transfer programs have focused on stable and moderately fragile contexts. The unique challenges and opportunities presented by extremely fragile contexts, such as Somalia, are under-researched. There was also a need for more rigorous quantitative studies and mixed method approaches that provide a comprehensive evaluation of targeting mechanisms. This presented conceptual, contextual, and methodological gaps. This also presented a knowledge gap as none of the studies have examined how targeting approaches affect the performance of cash transfer projects.

Given the unique socio-political and economic context of Somalia, it was crucial to understand how different targeting approaches affect the performance of cash transfer programs. Effectiveness of cash transfer programs in Somalia hinges on the accuracy of identifying and supporting the most vulnerable households amidst ongoing conflict and instability. This study aimed to fill the existing research gaps by evaluating the impact of community-based and mixed targeting on the performance of cash transfer project in Baidoa district, thereby providing insights for improving social protection policies and project implementation in Somalia. Moreover, it will address the following research questions:

1. How does community-based targeting affect the performance of cash transfer projects?
2. What is the impact of mixed targeting on the performance of cash transfer projects?

Literature Review

Targeting Approaches and Cash Transfer Projects

Targeting mechanisms applied in many cash transfer programs are considered successful in classifying poor beneficiaries but vary significantly across programs. These mechanisms sometimes fail by incorrectly identifying vulnerable households (Azevedo & Robles, 2013; Devereuxet al., 2015; Alataset al., 2016). This is because targeting in most developing countries relies on outdated modes and specified income thresholds for eligibility even though there is a lack of verifiable records of earnings as potential recipients work in the informal sectors that lack proper documentation (Alataset al., 2016).

Targeting systems and approaches for various cash transfer projects require people, skills, time, and money including other associated administrative, psychological, and political cost implications during their implementation that affect the project (Baulch, 2002). In their primary design of pulling people out of poverty, project administrators of cash transfer projects are required to conduct continuous, if not repeated, evaluations of the beneficiaries to determine if the same beneficiaries still need to receive the benefits or not (Devereuxet al., 2015). The decision of the choice of targeting system to apply is hinged on the various costs that can be attributable to the project outcomes both to those administering the project as well as the beneficiaries and the readiness of appropriate beneficiaries to participate in the program based on existing cost perceptions.

From the perspective of those administering the project, Coady and Parker (2009) arguethat for Mexico’s Oportunidades program, the decision to use a self-targeting approach was because of the higher costs of the alternative proxy testing in the urban areas which had a relatively lower population of desired households, (Coady & Parker, 2009). For most project managers, geographic targeting is easier to implement due to its administrative simplicity, which makes it a low-cost endeavor (Schady, 2002). On the other hand, community-based targeting approaches are less expensive due to lower administrative costs as the community groups involved have reliable information that works to better identify the households in need and limit the possibility of households providing falsified information regarding their assets, incomes, and the shocks they face (Conning & Kevane, 2002).

For the beneficiaries, the cost associated determines their willingness to engage in the project because if the private cost brought about by the targeting mechanism reduces the net benefit accrued, then beneficiaries are more likely to self-select, and households who feel that the private costs outweigh the value of the expected benefits are likely to exclude themselves (Coady & Parker, 2009). This is pointed out in the works of (Hunter & Adato, 2007), who interviewed the Child Support Grant (CGS) beneficiaries who were eligible but did not receive the grant in Kwa Zulu Natal, South Africa. They find that most of these would-be beneficiaries felt that the high cost of transport associated with the numerous required visits to the relevant government offices, the total trips necessary, the uncertainty concerning the success of the application, the long processing delays, and the perception that the grant is difficult to secure are some of the reasons why those eligible for the program did not seek the grant at all, as these transactional costs were perceived to be reducing the overall value of the expected benefits (Hunter & Adato, 2007). The study presented a conceptual gap as the overall definition of eligibility criteria was not adequately defined.

Targeting mechanisms clearly distinguish beneficiaries from non-beneficiaries, and this, in some cases, provides room for the deterioration of community cohesiveness, among other social costs. Mgemezulu (2008) points out that in most cases, certain community members are fearful of being targeted in their communities because of the eventual repercussions from those excluded. In some cases, the targeting mechanisms identified by the project become susceptible to external influences that limit their applicability and efficiency and worsen the project’s standing within the communities. For instance, community-based targeting can be influenced by nepotism and those influential within the community resulting in the undermining of social solidity and breeding resentment within the participating members of the community (Haet al., 2010). In Mexico, non-beneficiaries of PROGRESA expressed their resentment because they were excluded and, in effect, waiting and requiring beneficiaries to pay school fees first before they make the school fees payment themselves (Adato, 2000).

In Somalia, backlash from targeted food aid resulted in increased violence within the beneficiary communities, as witnessed in the WFP Somalia food program in 2007, where WFP reported increased Security incidents and deaths at food distributions (Jaspars & Maxwell, 2008). In Mongolia, intense administrative processes for the Child Money program resulted in higher leakages, raising hostilities between the families as more of the undeserving non-poor households benefited from the program as a result of the exclusion of poor households because of a flaw in the program proxy means testing and implementation problems (Hodgeset al., 2007). These studies present an overall conceptual gap as they fail to indicate the relevant conceptual framework within which the study was conducted, and they also do not sufficiently explore how these targeting mechanisms align with the socio-economic dynamics of highly vulnerable populations, particularly in fragile states like Somalia.

Devereuxet al. (2015) state that the social context of targeting is essential in establishing the extent of the social costs associated with the targeting mechanism. They highlight that community perception that the available benefits are not good enough to and cannot address the existing vulnerabilities, the lack of transparency, and the high level of secrecy in targeting approaches characteristically increase tensions, conflicts, and social division in the implementation and success of cash transfer projects. Even though the provision of cash transfers is necessary for improving the economic independence of the beneficiaries, the negative stigma associated with these programs, the perceived stereotypes, and the psycho-social costs associated with the program usually discourage the poor and the eligible from participating (Sluchynsky, 2009) and (Devereuxet al., 2015).

Targeting approaches are all faced with the difficulty of screening out the poorest due to inclusion and exclusion errors (Kakwani & Subbarao, 2005). In most cash transfer projects, the choice of who to include or exclude is dependent on the available budget and the available budget for the cash interventions, including electoral politics aimed at doing the best for the poor (Grosh & Leite, 2009). Baulch (2002) highlights that in order for an intervention to achieve political acceptability and support, there must be high levels of inclusion or exclusion of the non-poor for this to be achieved. However, the more exclusive, the better for the redistribution to the poor (Pritchett, 2005). In Mongolia, the exclusion of some children in the Child’s Money program was deemed unfair by the electorate, who called for change and hence the resulting political pressure for universal distribution of the benefits and a change from the poverty targeting that eventually led to the program’s failure (Hodgeset al., 2007).

Community Targeting and Performance of Cash Transfers

When distributing benefits for any social intervention program, the use of a community-based selection beneficiary is, in most cases, considered less costly and quite accurate (Yamauchi, 2010). This stems from the notion that community agents are considered to be in possession of enhanced knowledge within the community regarding who is worthy of assistance compared to other project managers and proponents (Faguet, 2004). In most interventions, community agents are represented by social and religious groups, local government officials, single-purpose NGOs, and other parties who are highly embedded within community life (Conning & Kevane, 2002). Proponents of community targeting argue that the institutions at the local level have more information available to them regarding the poor, are more accountable to their fellow poor community members and local people and are motivated to capitalize on and use this within the project setting to improve performance (Galasso & Ravallion, 2000). India’s Integrated Rural Development Project highlighted this much clearly, as the use of village council members during beneficiary selection resulted in smaller proportions of non-poor households being selected for the program (Copesake, 1992).

There are highlighted advantages of using community-based targeting. Galasso and Ravallion (2000) state that in addition to not only having better information needed to identify needs, but community agents also have the desired local definitions and descriptions of contextual deprivations that are adaptable to local conditions and clearly understood within the culture of the participating beneficiaries, unlike the rigid national formulas. However, community-based targeting might have a high opportunity cost as community agents may be undermined and forced to serve the interest of the elite, leading to further divisions and conflicts within the community, thereby failing to account for any other externalities just like any other decentralized welfare system consequently undermining the required political support (Conning & Kevane, 2002; Yamauchi, 2010). This implies that some local factors and circumstances determine how the beneficiaries are selected as well as how the project performs at the end (Bardhan & Mookherjee, 2005). However, the choice to design the targeted transfer program is based on accepting the tradeoffs between the knowledge and information held by the community at large and the likelihood and risk that those influential within the community might influence the corresponding community selection process (Alataset al., 2016).

Even though there is use and availability of better information during community-based targeting, this targeting mechanism is vulnerable to influence from varied external factors such as disagreement in the definition of the identification criteria as well as other social circumstances, indicating that the mechanism mostly depends on local contexts and the degree of elite capture (Galasso & Ravallion, 2000; Alataset al., 2016). While reviewing Bangladesh’s Food-for-Education program, Galasso and Ravallion (2000) find that communities and villages with higher inequalities in land holdings were characterized by low rates of participation due to the targeting compared to those with lower inequalities, with poorer villagers showing better targeting. For Olken (2006), Indonesia’s rice subsidy program highlighted that districts characterized by higher ethnic fragmentations with corresponding lower densities presented higher levels of missing rice that never reached the beneficiaries compared to districts that did not have similar characteristics.

Community targeting, with all its advantages, may not be sufficient to guarantee the performance of the project as is intended. Stifel and Alderman (2003) examine Peru’s Vaso de Leche (VL) transfer and feeding program, trying to determine if the community-based multistage targeting scheme was progressive to ensure that program objectives are achieved. By linking the program’s expenditure data to the country’s household survey data, they assessed the targeting mechanism and model for nutritional outcomes to determine if the interventions had impacts on nutrition. The results indicated that even though the program sufficiently targeted poor households with low nutritional status by selecting beneficiaries from poorer districts and ignoring the official targeting criteria. In their study, they found that milk transfers from the project resulted in infra-marginal gains for at least half of the beneficiaries, but the nutrition program fell short of its intended project even though they were well targeted and identified. This study presents a contextual gap as the study only focused on cash transfer projects within the Latin American region as a whole. There is a failure of understanding the effectiveness of targeting mechanisms specifically within the Somali context, given its unique challenges of prolonged conflict, political instability, and recurrent natural disasters.

With community-based targeting, there are higher levels of fulfillment with the selection process and legitimacy regardless of the project outcome. Alataset al. (2016) in Indonesia conducted a field experiment involving 640 villages and found that both community-based targeting and proxy means testing worked well in identifying the poor for redistribution and social benefits channeling. However, community-based targeting performed worse in identifying the poor than proxy means testing and resulted in higher levels of complaints and modifications to the beneficiary list. From the study results, a contextual gap arises as the study was based in Indonesia, which is a stable context, unlike a fragile conflict and violent context like Somalia.

Mixed Targeting and Performance of Cash Transfers

In certain circumstances, one method of identifying and targeting the desired beneficiaries may not be sufficient. The countries that have tight fiscal constraints, higher levels of vulnerability, and widespread poverty are usually faced with the difficulty of covering everyone in need of social assistance and face the difficult choice of how to prioritize and develop effective poverty targeting systems (ILO, 2016). Such poverty-targeting interventions need to be widespread and should focus on larger and multi-sector poverty reduction targets that use more than one targeting strategy, something known as mixed targeting. In Indonesia, both geographic and household targeting helped to identify recipients in the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis for the seven social safety net programs created to safeguard the incomes of the traditionally poor and the newly crisis-created poor (Sumartoet al., 2010).

Mix-method targeting approaches in Malawi were used to tackle the need to control eligibility beyond certain categories (ILO, 2016). In as much as the social protection systems in the country rely on poverty targeting, they combine that with categorical targeting creating a mix-method targeting approach. In social assistance to the elderly household, the government considered fairness and exclusion of the non-poor. To that effect, they would select the needy based on the definite variable of old age and follow up by excluding the undeserving households using means-testing. This study presents a conceptual gap as the overall study lacks a clear and well-grounded conceptual framework that underpins the study.

Mixed targeting methods have the advantage of being transparent whilst reducing leakages and improving political acceptability. Applying mixed targeting approaches leads to higher accuracy and transparency. In the Philippines, the Safety net-oriented workforce programs used mixed targeting approaches that required the involved agencies to conduct a three-step targeting method. Geographic targeting served to identify the project locale and project area, then the benefit level mechanism enabled beneficiaries to self-select into the program before applying community-based validation to determine if the beneficiaries identified and selected were the actual poor (Acosta & Olfindo, 2016). From the results of the study, a contextual and conceptual gap arises given the study’s localization in the Philippines, calling for further analysis of the same in different regional contexts.

Theoretical Framework

The social capital theory by Robert Putnam is the overarching theory of this study. The theory states that all social relationships and interactions need to be viewed as resources that are used for the development and stocking of reproductive benefits within the society (Putnam, 1995). In theory, social capital links all substantial sectors of the community to function towards a common goal that makes people in society develop evolved preferences with specific cues necessary to achieve higher levels of social capital (Savage & Kanazawa, 2002). The key assumption of the theory is that individuals are likely to remain within networks and choose to be associated and linked to a particular network because of the values and benefits that make them remain within the network (Putnam, 1993). This theory hints at the existence of a core intuition behind social capital, unlike market relationships, where things that have economic value are traded based on their value, with interpersonal relationships involving social exchanges where favors are exchanged instead of money (Adler & Kwon, 2002). From this perspective, whenever individuals grant favor to one another, they are receiving a credit of goodwill which they may choose to cash in at a future date to attain some personal outcome (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Bizzi, 2015). To this extent, beneficiaries of cash transfers choose to participate in these programs because of the benefits and assistance they are obtaining from participation and including themselves. Therefore, the relationships within the social capital theory are preserved by capitalizing on approaches that seek to enable the institutionalization of group relations that make dependable sources of benefits for both the project and beneficiaries (Portes, 1998). In this regard, the social capital theory provides room for the researcher to examine if the ideals of the welfare state through cash transfers have created disincentives for the targeted beneficiary’s participation in these projects regardless of the way they are selected to participate in the projects.

The social interdependence theory attributed to Deutsch (1962) and Johnson and Johnson (1989) argues that social interdependence exists when individuals share common goals, and the outcome of each individual’s efforts are affected by the actions of others (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). The theory states that positive social interdependence arises when individuals believe that they are able to achieve their goals only when they cooperatively link with another individual who also then reaches their expected goals and thereby achieves their overall goals through the promotion of each other’s efforts (Johnsonet al., 2007). On the other hand, negative social interdependence arises when and if individuals are able to obtain their goals only if they are able to obstruct another’s efforts to achieve their goals, thereby achieving their intended goals when another individual with whom they are linked completely fails to obtain their goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Likewise, no interdependence results when the competing individuals can and are able to reach their goals regardless of the other individual attaining their goals or not (Johnsonet al., 2007). This theory asserts that based on their common goals, individuals should facilitate and complement each other’s efforts to get results and achieve their overall goals by exchanging and sharing resources whilst working for the same purpose and goals. The theory provides basis with which to examine the independent variables and their role in ensuring the selection of the desired beneficiaries and their corresponding actions to ensure project performance.

The rational action theory or rational choice theory states that individuals participate in those actions based on their personal preferences and likings. The theory is based on the works of Homans (1961), who argue that within a society, individuals make choices and develop behavior patterns acting in a manner that is aimed at maximizing their benefits whilst minimizing their costs. From this, the choices develop into significant patterns of behavior within society with the assumption that all actions are rational and that all actions are based on the fundamental computation of the likely costs and benefits associated with the action and thus choose the least costly alternative from a set of available options. The theory argues that when left on their own, people use rationality as a guiding principle and are thus guided by wants and goals that are compatible and express their own inclinations based on the information they have available before deciding the choice of action to take (Homans, 1958). Becker (1976) further supports this and argues that individuals are always motivated by their own inclinations and make reasoned-out decisions when faced with a multitude of choices through a cost-benefit analysis process and take the options that are less costly to their personal preferences and shy away from those that they deem to be costly. The theory thus argues that by anticipating the outcomes of the various available courses of action, individuals identify and pick the best alternative choice that matches their best-preferred choice of what they want to achieve. In doing so, they become in charge of their choices by acting in their own best interest. The theory is important for the dependent variable in that from the perspective of the performance of cash transfer projects. Based on the projects undertaking, a choice to participate in the project or not is made available to the beneficiary in terms of using the cash received from cash transfer projects to meet their needs and demands to meet their wide range of basic needs. This is a choice made in terms of the comparison between the benefits associated with access to cash transfers or not. Participation in cash transfer projects offers a sense of belonging, something that is important for both implementing organizations and the beneficiaries.

Materials and Methods

This study employed a descriptive survey design. The choice of research design was guided by Mugenda (2008), who argues that descriptive research design provides an effective and efficient means of collecting information for an exhaustive examination of the research topic. This design was also effective in collecting the information as observed without giving room for modification of the research variables but allowed for modification of data collection and analysis procedures to collect more specific information as well as exploring any additional areas of interest (Mugenda & Mugenda, 1999). The rationale for choosing a descriptive survey design depended on its ease of conducting a comprehensive snapshot at a particular point in time. This offers a better and proper way of assessing how targeting approaches affect the performance of cash transfer projects focusing on the Baidoa district by facilitating and enabling data collection without external interference.

There are 18 cash transfer projects that have been conducted in the Baidoa district between the years 2018 and 2022. These projects formed the target population and were composed of the donor representatives, project managers, the monitoring and evaluation, and the government representatives overseeing the cash transfer projects. This consisted of 18 project managers, 18 project monitoring and evaluation officers, 4 government representatives, and 18 donor representatives for a total of 58 individuals linked to cash transfer projects in Baidoa District.

Both structured questionnaires and key informant interview guides (KIIs) were used to collect the necessary primary data for the study. The questionnaire collected quantitative information from key project staff and personnel of cash transfer projects. The key informant guide collected information from in-depth interviews with the project technical staff to collect qualitative data on the experiences, challenges, and success of different targeting approaches. In addition, Focus Group Discussion (FDG) guides were used to gather detailed insights into their experiences and perceptions of the cash transfer projects. This qualitative data complemented the quantitative data collected through questionnaires. Descriptive, inferential statistics and regression analysis were used to analyze the quantitative data, while thematic analysis was used to examine the qualitative data, linking the results with data from the questionnaire.

Results

Background Characteristics

Gender of Respondent

The study sought to determine the gender distribution of the respondents participating in the study to know their gender profile and how it might influence the findings. Understanding the gender composition was crucial as it provided insights into the representation and involvement of different genders in cash transfer projects (Table I).

Table I. Gender of Respondents

Gender of respondents	Frequency	Percentage
Male	42	72.4%
Female	16	27.6%
Total	58	100%

From the results, 72.4% were male, while 27.6% of those interviewed were female. The results show that most of those who participated in the implementation and management of cash assistance projects in the Baidoa district of Somalia were men, indicating that the management of cash transfer projects in Baidoa is largely patriarchal and male-led.

Age Distribution of Respondents

The study sought to determine the age distribution of the participants to gain insights into the diversity of the age groups involved in cash transfer projects. Understanding these demographic characteristics helped to contextualize the findings and assess how age-related factors might influence project management and implementation (Table II).

Table II. Age of Respondents

Age of respondent	Frequency	Percentage
25 years and below	9	15.5%
26–35 years	32	55.7%
36–45 years	16	27.6%
46–55 years	1	1.7%
Total	58	100%

The results show that most of the respondents were between 26 and 35 years old, accounting for 55.2%, compared to 27.6% aged between 36 and 45 years old. Those older than 45 years old accounted for 1.7% of all respondents. Those aged younger than 25 years old represented 15.5% of the respondents. The results indicate that most participants and managers of cash transfer projects were youthful or middle-aged.

Highest Level of Education Completed

The study aimed to understand the highest education level of the respondents with an aim of understanding their literacy levels (Table III).

Table III. Highest Level of Education Completed

Highest level of education	Frequency	Percentage
Bachelors	19	32.8%
Certificate	1	1.7%
Diploma	3	5.2%
Postgraduate degree	30	51.7%
Secondary	5	8.6%
Total	58	100%

From the results, 51.7% were postgraduate degrees while 32.8% had attained bachelor’s degree. The remaining 15.5% of the respondents had either received certificate (1.7%), diploma (5.2%), or secondary education (8.6%). This implies that there were considerably high levels of literacy among the respondents, indicating the existence of the necessary literacy levels needed to understand the research questions and accurately respond to the study questions.

Highest Level of Education Completed

The study sought to examine the specific roles of the respondents in cash transfer projects (Table IV).

Table IV. Highest Level of Education Completed

Roles in cash transfer projects	Frequency	Percentage
Project managers (LNGO, NGOs, IOs)	18	31%
Monitoring and evaluation officers	18	31%
Government representatives	4	7%
Donor representatives	18	31.%
Total	58	100%

From the results, 62% were either project managers (31%) or monitoring evaluation officers (31%) of the various cash transfer projects. Donor representatives accounted for 31% of the respondents while government representatives in the various projects represented 7% of those interviewed. This shows that those interviewed were knowledgeable about cash transfer projects as they had been extensively involved directly in these projects.

Community-Based Targeting and Performance of Cash Transfer Projects

The study sought to establish the association between community-based targeting and the performance of cash transfer projects. In this respect, the study participants needed to indicate the importance of community members in the selection and identification of vulnerable households for cash transfer projects in community-based targeting (Table V).

Table V. Importance of Community Members in Beneficiary Selection

Community’s roles in cash transfer projects	Frequency	Percentage
Strongly agree	30	51.7%
Agree	14	24.1%
Neutral	10	17.2%
Disagree	3	5.2%
Strongly disagree	1	1.7%
Total	58	100%

From the results, the majority either strongly agreed (51.7%) or agreed (24.1%) with the importance of community members in the selection and identification of vulnerable households for cash transfer projects. This shows that the majority (75.4%) confirmed that, indeed, the community has an important role in the selection of beneficiaries in community targeting. A bivariate model for community targeting (independent variable) against the performance of cash transfer (the dependent variable) was conducted in order to determine how it influenced the performance of cash transfer projects (Table VI).

Table VI. Estimated Coefficients of Community Targeting and Project Performance

	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	t	Sig.
	B	Std. Error	Beta
(Constant)	0.786	0.87		8.986	<0.001
Community targeting	0.123	0.100	0.162	−0.078	0.324

From the results, community targeting positively influences the performance of cash transfer projects. This is established by the estimated coefficient of 0.123 (p-value > 0.05), even though the effect is not significant. This means that all other factors remaining constant; one unit change in the performance of cash transfer (dependent variable) is a result of a 0.123 change in the independent variable (community targeting). Nonetheless, there are other factors not considered in the regression that affect the performance of the cash transfer project based on the estimated coefficient of the constant term of 0.786 (p-value < 0.001), with the effect considered to be significant.

Additional clarification was sought from the respondents, who were asked to indicate how community-based targeting influenced the selection of beneficiaries for cash transfer projects from their own points of viewpoint. The results highlight the belief that community targeting was an important means of identifying needy beneficiaries as it was based on levels of vulnerability, and others believed that the use of community-based targeting enhanced communal support for the project as community members would willingly participate in the project.

“The involvement of the community in the targeting process is crucial. It is found to be the most convenient method of beneficiary identification, influencing the execution of cash transfer implementation. It also benefits from support from the local markets and enterprises as they aim to readily offer immediate assistance in a more dignified manner as they believe they are helping one of their own in the community.” –KII Informant.

“It increases project accountability and transparency to community and government. It provides space for community elders to select genuine HHs, ensure inclusivity and reduce disputes with in the community. It also prevents cash diversion and corruption which involves poor HH selection and deviation from vulnerability criteria.”–KII Informant.

However, it is not perfect mechanism and is prone to malpractice if not oversighted correctly.

“The community targeting had numerous influence in performance of cash targeting in Somalia which include both negative and positive influence. Community selection committees selects most vulnerable people in the community since they are part of the wider community, and they are aware of the households who are most vulnerable and selecting these households will help address their food needs and other vulnerable needs. However, it might have a negative impact if community committees selects wrong beneficiaries or do malpractices where they can ask to return some of their entitlements as a means to qualify for selection.”–KII Informant.

“CBT puts the community in the driving seat and gives them the choice to select the cash recipients based on their understanding and perception of the vulnerability and poverty criteria. It empowers communities to identify who receives the cash in their community as they know their communities well. However, it is susceptible to manipulation and the risk of exclusion and inclusion errors is high. Also, there is the risk of nepotism and beneficiary stigma could happen. If it’s not done well, and this could adversely impact the cash transfer, and the program’s expected results cannot be met.”–KII informant.

From the discussions, the respondents highlighted some of the challenges faced with the use of community based targeting from their experience in Baidoa. They claimed that the process takes a bit longer to create and may unnecessarily attract harmful external actors who may influence the process, government pressures, and communal conflicts may affect the performance of the project.

“Community targeting always results in exclusion of minority communities, clans and groups and thus leading to poor performance. The approach also does not address the need for the cash assistance and may there miss its priority.”–KII informant.

“Yes, the process takes a bit longer and create unnecessary awareness where may be sometimes attract the focus of harmful actors who may interrupt the project implementation.”–KII informant.

“There are several challenges, and this include conflicts within the community, influence from the political leadership, possible corruption cases at the community level usually affect community based targeting.”–KII Informant.

“Inclusion of various segments of the community in the community based selection committee is always challenging which if not properly handle can bring community tensions and exclusion risks. The committee may also become gatekeepers and exploit their influence to try to interfere with the targeting process.”–KII Informant.

“The community based targeting also requires time since the selection process will require various levels of engagement and verification process. The logistics and other allowance for the committee is also an additional cost to the project.”–KII Informant.

From the results, it is clear that community targeting, even though it influences the performance of cash transfer projects, is associated with numerous challenges, depending on the context, program objectives, and implementation modality of the specified projects. This is because it is time-consuming, and setting up a community-based targeting requires sufficient time to carry out community sensitization to ensure that community members understand the selection process of beneficiaries. Also, the formation of a community committee takes time. For emergency response, especially rapid onset crises, this targeting method will not be useful for fast response. There is a high risk for manipulation as community committees may manipulate the targeting process by including their family members who might not fill in the selection criteria. Equally, it requires high literacy levels among the community committee members for them to understand the criteria so as to apply it correctly during the beneficiary selection. In rural villages in underdeveloped countries, this can be a key challenge in applying community targeting. There are also issues of scalability and a lack of feasibility to scale up into urban and refugee or IDP contexts. This is in addition to the evident clan issues that prevail in Somalia.

“In Somalia, where people identify closely with their tribes and clans, there’s a high chance of bias in the selection process, with some groups getting more help than others. Especially, where clans and tribes hold strong influence, there’s a chance powerful people might try to sway the selection process to benefit their own families or allies. Likewise, marginalized groups, such as minority clans, internally displaced persons (IDPs), or people with disabilities, might be overlooked. Therefore, choosing who needs help most can be a source of tension within the community because people might have different opinions on who deserves assistance the most.”–KII Informant.

Mixed Targeting and Performance of Cash Transfer Projects

The study sought to assess the association between mixed targeting and cash transfer projects. In this regard, respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the view that mixed targeting where more than one targeting approach is important in the selection of that households as a beneficiary of cash transfer projects (Table VII).

Table VII. Mixed Targeting is Important in the Selection of Households

Mixed targeting is important in selectionof household	Frequency	Percentage
Strongly agree	28	48.3%
Agree	21	36.2%
Neutral	6	10.3%
Disagree	3	5.2%
Total	58	100%

From the results, 48.3% strongly agreed with the assertion that mixed targeting, which includes using more than one targeting approach, is an important approach when identifying vulnerable households for selection as beneficiaries of cash transfer projects. Similarly, 36.2% also with this assertion. This shows that the majority, 84.5%, held the opinion that mixed targeting was an important approach when identifying vulnerable households for cash transfer projects. A bivariate model for mixed targeting (independent variable) against performance of cash transfer (the dependent variable) was conducted in order to determine how it influenced the performance of cash transfer projects (Table VIII).

Table VIII. Mixed Targeting is Important in the Selection of Households

	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	t	Sig.
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	0.778	0.110		7.102	<0.001
Mixed targeting	0.120	0.119	0.134	1.009	0.317

In the results, mixed targeting has a positive influence on the performance of cash transfer projects as determined by the estimated regression coefficient of 0.120 (p-value > 0.05), and the effect is not significant. This means that one unit change in the dependent variable arises from a 0.12 change in the independent variable, with all other factors remaining constant. From the results, it can be further noted that other factors positively and significantly affect the performance of cash transfer projects based on the estimated coefficient of the constant term of 0.778 (p-value < 0.001).

Respondents were further asked to indicate how mixed targeting influences the selection of beneficiaries for cash transfer projects. The results indicate that mixed targeting is a more accurate targeting approach as it overcomes difficulties presented by the other targeting approaches due to its increased efficiency, enhanced flexibility, and enhanced accuracy due to its ability to combine targeting approaches.

“Mixed targeting is mainly combined targeting approaches to ensure the right people are identified and selected for cash transfer projects. this reduces duplications.”–KII Informant.

“Community trust is high when mixed targeting is done and they will feel they are not left out, since this kind of targeting is comprehensive data accuracy can be high compared to using single method of targeting.”–KII Informant.

“The mixed targeting approach would have a better influence on cash transfer program when applied following the correct procedures. The beauty of combining multiple targeting methods is to complement each other to ensure the right people are identified and the inclusion/exclusion errors are minimal.”–KII Informant.

“Mixed targeting, which combines different targeting methods can streamline the selection process, making it more efficient by leveraging the strengths of each methods used. By combining methods such as geographical and community-based targeting, mixed targeting can potentially reduce errors of inclusion and exclusion, leading to a more accurate identification of beneficiaries especially in the Somalia context.”–KII Informant.

“In addition, mixed targeting allows for flexibility in adapting to different contexts and needs, which can be particularly beneficial in dynamic and complex environments like those found in Somalia.”–KII Informant.

However, there was the belief that mixed targeting has some inherent problems, such as aid diversion, its cumbersome procedures, and its inherent high administration costs.

“It can lead to the targeting of ghost beneficiaries, lowering community confidence and donor unhappiness to mixed targeting. It also may result Aid diversion and corruption by community representatives and even staff due to complexity of the approach.”–KII Informant.

“Mixed targeting can be cumbersome, and it come with high administrative cost thus most of the time cash interventions are already under resourced and to use a big chunk of the funds on targeting alone can be discouraging and affect project success.”–KII Informant.

“It creates confusion, it also delays the implementation and creates employing unnecessary efforts and there is a likelihood of aid diversion and corruption, delay of assistance and recurring conflicts with in the target people.”–KII Informant.

The key informants pointed out that even though it was an efficient method of targeting, mixed targeting is complex and involves coordinating multiple methods and sources of information, which can be complex and resource-intensive things that lead to difficulties in managing and require integrating different targeting processes, potentially causing delays and inefficiencies. In addition, there are varying methods and criteria for targeting and beneficiary selection processes, making it difficult to ensure consistency and standardization across the project, something that results in discrepancies in beneficiary selection and potential biases or errors in targeting.

“Implementing mixed targeting can be resource-intensive, requiring significant investment in terms of time, personnel, and financial resources. Bringing together different targeting approaches requires coordination among various stakeholders, including government agencies, NGOs, community leaders, and beneficiaries. It takes a lot of effort and coordination to make sure everyone’s on the same page, which can slow things down. Ensuring consistency and accuracy when integrating data from different targeting methods can be problematic, leading to potential errors in beneficiary selection.”–KII Informant.

“Many challenges could be encountered including the appropriateness of the targeting methods to the local context, the level of understanding of communities to the criteria, and their skills to interpret them to their situation.”–KII Informant.

“Sometimes, most of the target population could fall under the same level of vulnerability and possess the same characteristics of poverty. This means that most people are poor or vulnerable and separating them according to level of vulnerability could be difficult. In such situations, you need to ensure that the chosen targeting method is appropriate to the local context.”–KII Informant.

“Combining different targeting methodologies can be complex and costly thus when there is an urgent need to support people affected by natural disasters or conflicts it would be ineffective method to use. There can be coordination challenge in pulling in all data and resources collected from all the agencies and stakeholders.”–KII Informant.

Discussion

Community-based targeting has a positive influence on the performance of cash transfer projects, even though the effect is not statistically significant. This conforms with what Faguet (2004) and Yamauchi (2010) who support the efficiency of community-based targeting in accurately identifying the poor and, minimizing administrative costs, and ensuring the wider reach of the project. Aspects of community-based targeting have been observed to be significant in that it increases the legitimacy of the cash transfer projects, which conforms with the findings of Faguet (2004), which found that community agents have better knowledge of who deserves and needs assistance within the community when compared to other project managers and proponents. Most respondents believed that a community-based selection process increases the legitimacy of the project and results in a high level of the beneficiary selection process. However, there is skepticism about the role played by community agents in the identification of vulnerable community members as well as the community members defining the beneficiary selection criteria. This is similar to the findings of Copesake (1992), who found that the use of village council members during beneficiary selection resulted in smaller proportions of non-poor households being selected for the program India’s Integrated Rural Development Project. The results confirm that in community-based targeting, the community plays a role in defining who the needy and vulnerable are in the community, and it is the role of the community agents to identify the needy. This is similar to what Alataset al.(2016) did in Indonesia, where community based targeting worked well in identifying the poor for redistribution and social benefits channeling. Community-based targeting promotes the beneficiary selection criteria of identifying needy beneficiaries as it is based on levels of vulnerability with the belief that the use of community-based targeting enhances communal support for the project as members of the local communities willingly participate in the project. However, it is associated with numerous challenges related to biases and local power dynamics; depending on the context, program objectives, and implementation modality of the specified projects, it can be time-consuming as setting up a community-based targeting requires sufficient time to carry out community sensitization to ensure that community members know the selection process of eligible beneficiaries.

Mixed targeting approaches have a positive effect on the performance of cash transfer projects and the influence is not significant. Mixed targeting is a more accurate targeting approach as it overcomes difficulties presented by the other targeting approaches due to its increased efficiency, enhanced flexibility, and enhanced accuracy due to its ability to integrate multiple methods, leveraging the strengths of each method while mitigating their weaknesses to better adapt to local contexts. This approach has been effective in enhancing transparency and acceptance among beneficiaries. This is consistent with what Acosta and Olfindo (2016) found in the Philippines, where they argue that the mixed targeting method had the advantage of being transparent reducing leakages, and improving political acceptability among the beneficiaries and community as a whole, thereby increasing the success of the project. The results also show that the number and age of household members are relevant in mixed targeting findings similar to the observations of ILO (2016), who found that mixing targeting approaches are useful in addressing the need to restrict eligibility categories. However, it is complex and involves coordinating multiple methods and sources of information, which can be complex and resource-intensive, which can lead to difficulties in managing and requires integrating different targeting processes, potentially causing delays and inefficiencies.

Conclusions

The study concludes that targeting approaches have an effect on the performance of cash transfer projects in the Baidoa district. Community-based targeting and mixed targeting have been positively associated with positive project outcomes for cash transfer projects, suggesting an overall improvement in project performance as a result of these targeting approaches. Despite their positive influence, the magnitude of their effects is limited for both mixed and community-based targeting. The study demonstrates that each targeting approach has unique strengths, but combining methods yields the best results for improving cash transfer project performance. Community involvement and local knowledge are essential for successful targeting, but measures must be taken to avoid biases. These insights can inform policymakers and practitioners in designing more effective cash transfer programs, ultimately enhancing social protection and resilience in vulnerable communities. Targeting approaches have their flaws, and there is no distinct and singular targeting approach that works perfectly, and that project performance is highly and significantly determined by other factors that are not based on how the beneficiaries were selected or identified to participate in the projects.

Integrating various targeting methods, like mixed targeting, will harness their collective strengths, resulting in more precise and efficient beneficiary identification. Secondly, to augment the effectiveness and efficiency of cash transfer projects, it is imperative to improve community involvement by ensuring diverse representation in decision-making committees, and providing comprehensive training on unbiased beneficiary selection is essential. Such measures will enhance the accuracy and legitimacy of the targeting process, ensuring that resources reach those most in need. Additionally, investing in the collection of more detailed geographical data will refine targeting mechanisms, preventing the exclusion of vulnerable households and improving overall project efficacy. Implementing continuous assessment and necessary adjustments of targeting approaches, ensuring their sustained effectiveness. These actions are not merely improvements but essential steps to safeguard the success and integrity of cash transfer projects. Policymakers and practitioners should adopt these recommendations to design more resilient and impactful cash transfer programs, ultimately strengthening social protection frameworks and fostering resilience in the most vulnerable communities.

Longitudinal studies should be conducted to assess the long-term impact of different targeting mechanisms on project outcomes, providing valuable insights into their sustained effectiveness and areas for improvement. Exploring the effectiveness of targeting approaches in other conflict-affected regions can identify best practices and transferable lessons, which are crucial for tailoring interventions to diverse and challenging environments. Also, investigating the role of technology, such as GIS and mobile data collection, can significantly improve the accuracy and efficiency of targeting mechanisms. Lastly, conducting cost-benefit analyses of various targeting approaches will identify the most cost-effective methods for different contexts, ensuring optimal use of resources. These research initiatives are vital for developing more effective, inclusive, and sustainable cash transfer programs. By addressing these areas, future projects can be better equipped to meet the needs of vulnerable populations, fostering resilience in the most challenging circumstances.