To answer this question, we collected the available administrative data for all the programs studied and from other similar programs in the region.<sup>33</sup> Table 8 shows the targeting costs per screened households (e.g., for each interview, for PMT, regardless of whether the household will be selected). It also shows the targeting cost per final beneficiary. The cost per beneficiary is higher, since not all households screened will become beneficiaries. In addition, mechanically, programs with a lower selection rate (including a smaller share of total, screened households) will have higher targeting costs per beneficiary as a share of program budget. This would be an additional argument for high selection thresholds. The last column of Table 8 indicates the targeting costs as a share of total transfers made to households by the program.

The results from each program must be taken with caution since costs are not recorded systematically and in a consistent manner. Besides, targeting costs are not always easily separable from other program costs (e.g., staff time). Finally, targeting operations often serve other purposes, such as registration of households for future payments (which needs to be conducted even for non-targeted transfers). This means that eliminating targeting is unlikely to eliminate the full amount indicated in Table 8. Despite these caveats, Table 8 shows consistent figures and findings.

The cost to screen each household is found to be similar across methods: around $5-$7 per household, whether PMT, HEA or CBT is employed. It is higher in Chad ($9.5) and lower in Senegal 2 ($3.2), and also lower when self-targeting is employed. This indicates that a reasonable, conservative rule of thumb in the Sahelian context, consistent with Beaugé et al. (2018), would be $5 to $10 per screen household. Given that selection rates vary greatly across programs, these costs result in a cost per beneficiary household ranging from $13.5 to $38.8. However, these costs remain minor compared to the total amount transferred to households: they represent 1.5% to 5.5% of total transfers.<sup>34</sup> These numbers are consistent with those from the studies reviewed by Devereux et al. (2017). Given that program costs include additional administrative costs and that targeting operations serve other purposes such as registration, targeting costs do not seem to affect in a substantive manner the amounts delivered to households. Compared to the issue of targeting performance, targeting costs remain, at best, a minor argument against targeting households.

> 33 The estimates include variable costs associated with collecting the information necessary to identify beneficiaries and exclude fixed costs that are linked to multiple program aspects other than targeting, such as government administrative costs.

> 34 These numbers do not include programs with self-targeting. Self-targeting consists in individuals applying to the program in order to receive benefits, which reduces targeting costs because (i) there is no door-to-door survey (program applicants must go to a central office), and (ii) there is usually a much smaller number of households to be screened.

22