use the MCNA survey and calculate the SSN eligibility of the households in the survey that would be deem eligible under the new SEVAT model.<sup>14</sup> Unlike the previous analysis of the actual database of the beneficiaries, this, using the survey, represents an exploratory analysis and the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Again, given the CLCI’s CT coverage and MCNA survey’s focus, we limit the crosseligibility analysis to the sample from the Northern region that would be deem eligible under the new SEVAT targeting formula (about 14 percent).

Table 9 presents the findings from this exploratory analysis. Results suggest much less overlap between MoLSA targeting and the new humanitarian targeting approach based on the MCNA survey data. Under a small program scenario i.e. targeting the poorest 18 percent nationally, the overlap varies between 0.7 to 13.2 percent depending on the level of confidence. Given equal targeting thresholds suggested by the PPMT, overlaps at high and medium confidence levels are same for a medium size program and increase to 15.4 percent at low confidence level. As expected, the overlap increase under a larger program scenario (between 3.3 to 19.9 percent) but remains significantly less than for the legacy database.

_Table 9. Percentage of likely CLCI beneficiaries in MCNA Survey that are likely to be eligible for MoLSA programs at different program sizes and degrees of confidence_

|Scenario|Program Size|Referral Confidence|Percentage of Households|
|---|---|---|---|
|High confidence, small<br>program|Poorest 18 percent<br>nationally|90 percent|0.7 percent|
|Medium confidence,<br>smallprogram|Poorest 18 percent<br>nationally|70 percent|6.5 percent|
|Low confidence, small<br>program|Poorest 18 percent<br>nationally|50 percent|13.2 percent|
|High confidence, medium<br>program|Poorest 25 percent<br>nationally|90 percent|0.7 percent|
|Medium confidence,<br>mediumprogram|Poorest 25 percent<br>nationally|70 percent|6.5 percent|
|Low confidence, medium<br>program|Poorest 25 percent<br>nationally|50 percent|15.4 percent|
|High confidence, large<br>program|Poorest 35 percent<br>nationally|90 percent|3.3 percent|
|Medium confidence,<br>largeprogram|Poorest 35 percent<br>nationally|70 percent|13.2 percent|
|Low confidence, large<br>program|Poorest 35 percent<br>nationally|50 percent|19.9 percent|

_Data Source_ : Multi Cluster Needs Assessment (MCNA) survey The lower level of overlap can potentially be explained by the fact that the likely eligibility exercise is carried out on a survey rather than the beneficiary’s database. First, even though there are a greater number of common variables in the two models, different enumeration may have led to questions being asked in different ways. For example, household size depends critically on what a respondent considers a household to be. For some, this may mean a family, for others multiple families living under the same

> 14 The updated SEVAT models provide three cut-off thresholds designed such that those deemed highly vulnerable would receive transfers up to three times per year, moderate vulnerable receive two times, while those deem just vulnerable receive a single transfer in a year. The overlap presented in Table 9 are for highly vulnerable households only (14 percent of the sample). Results are similar, decreases slightly, when including other two groups.

19