Who receives the benefits of an intervention?

When an intervention targets a subgroup in a community, this can feed into and worsen the Dividers between that group and others. When this occurs, interveners appear to be biased, and people are more likely to attempt to manipulate the intervention.

How were the recipients chosen?

This question is often asked by communities. Organizations do not communicate this well to the people with whom they work, in part, because they seldom make their criteria explicit even to themselves. When this is not clear, communities become suspicious. Jealousy, resentment, misunderstanding, and tension can be raised.

What are the criteria that shape this decision?

Criteria channel interventions toward some groups and away from others. This is sometimes intentional, but not always. There are lots of assumptions built into the criteria organizations use that need to be unpacked so that the implications can be understood.

One key challenge in targeting is when the recipients all share an identity.

• Ethnic identity
• Religious identity
• Profession (e.g. farmers)
• All from the same geographic area
• Defined as needy in ways that exclude other needy (poorest of the poor, most damaged housing, etc.).

Other challenges to consider:

• Do they share an identity with the organization’s staff?
• Were recipients picked by the local governing authorities?
• Were they selected in order to ensure the success of the program?

Previous Page Critical Detail Mapping with the Six Critical Details
Next Page Critical Detail: Resources—What do we provide?

Related Topics
Critical Detail: Staffing – Who is hired?
Critical Detail: Partnering – Who do we work with and through?
Critical Detail: Working with local authorities
Critical Detail: How to intervene
Using the Six Critical Details
Lesson 5: The details of interventions matter