This study aims at assess ing th e targeting efficiency in Antsokia Ge miza Wereda, inrnNorth Shewa. The study ba sed its obj ectives on th e hypothesis of household targetingrnprac tice s are not efficient in Antsokia due to the failure to exclude the non-eligiblernbeneficiaries at the expense of eligible non-beneficiaries. Th e specific objectives are (i) tornexamine different targeting methods used to select beneficiary households of relief, (ii) to examinerncriteria used to set a threshold among beneficiary households, (iii) to estimate the targetingrnaccuracy (error of inclusion and error of exc lusion) against its intended eligib le groups, (iv) torncompare resource given to households with the 'idea/' ration (error of under supply and error ofrnover supply) and finally (v) to assess major factors that affect targeting efficiency.rnInformation gathered by empl oying a co mbination of prim ary and secondary data; th ernstudy applied both qualitative and quantitative methods. Th e secondary data ga th eredrnfrom previously published materials wh ile the primary data based its information on thern200 relief distribution have been co llected from the sampled households h eads,rninterviews, and observa tio ns. Th e household survey app lied economic vulnerabilityrnindicators to identify household's 'eligibility' or 'ine ligibility' for relief aid. Th e majorrnindices, i.e. livestock ownership, land holding, dependency ratio, off-farm in come, croprnproduction and oxen own ership, were convert ed into a standard scale th e 'Z-score '.rnThe study noticed that the current targeting mechanism in Antsokia wereda hasrnproficient procedures, de sp ite actual practices impeded its e fficiency. It applied arnco mbined administrative-community targeting method, the combina tion is advantageousrnto complement each other. Th e administrative targetin g decided th a t the eligibilityrnindicator would be asse t ownership . However, the community targe ting found oxenrnownership indicator easier to screen out eligible beneficiary households. The weredarnimplemented its selection factor (oxen own ership) with 14% inclusion and exclusionrnerrors. Both pair of errors, inclusion/exclusion and over/under supply targeting errors arernwitnessed in th e relief targeting. The findin gs show that there was 32.5% error of incidence (usingrneconomic vulnerability indica tor) and 91.3% error of benefit. Th e major factors which determinedrnthe efficiency of targeting are: (a) DPPC approved below half of the wereda's relief request , (b)rnoxen ownership selection factor genuinely denied some of the food insecure and included th ernfood secure households, (c) the community targeting had been affected by favoritism andrndiscrimination (d) the co mmunity refused to participate in the selection and (e) the beneficiaryrnhouseholds did not get all their ration.rnIdentification of the exact problems, tied with th e efficiency of targeting system s, is usedrnto suggest practical and affordable methodologies for future intervention in the weredarnand other we redas with similar features. Th e study recommended (a) to balance Ple dgernand delivery (b) to construct additional warehouse to th e wereda (c) to extend th ernse le ction factor from oxen ownership to related economic statu s indicators (d) tornencourage th e community to participate in targ eting and (e)to strictly f ollow th e intendedrnhousehold/individual ration.