O.5 Social Protection Delivery Chain

Overview | 19

the capacity is, the better the social assistance can be. Using the costs or difficulty of building capacity to discern the welfare of the poor as the reason for preferring universal programs over poverty-targeted ones skips a piece of the logic. The funding of universal systems also requires building capacity to assess income or consumption, it just builds it in a different place—in the tax office rather than the social assistance center.

The delivery systems and processes of social assistance programs are important for the distributional outcomes—for reducing both errors of exclusion and errors of inclusion. Acknowledgment of the importance of implementation is not new in the literature, but this book goes deeper into the topic than many treatments. Chapter 4 reviews the stages of the delivery chain from outreach through exits from the program, using Lindert et al.’s (2020) framework (figure O.5), highlighting the main ways in which targeting errors can occur and how they can be minimized. It discusses how the delivery chain can be strengthened to allow programs to handle shocks and the institutional and data systems to support the delivery chain.

Figure O.5 Social Protection Delivery Chain

Outreach Intake and registration Assessment of needs and conditions Eligibility and enrollment decisions Determination of benefits and service package Notification and onboarding Provision of benefits and/or services

1 2 3 4 5 6

Intended population Registrants Registered population that is assessed for needs and conditions

Eligible population

Noneligible applicants (out)

Enrolled eligible applicants (in) Nonenrolled eligible applicants (wait list)

Enrolled beneficiaries 7

Source: Lindert et al. 2020.

20 | Revisiting Targeting in Social Assistance

Chapter 4 contains the most focused discussion of the importance of delivery systems for targeting, but the importance of the topic is such that there are echoes in other chapters as well.

The book covers delivery systems even before discussing the choice of targeting methods, to emphasize the importance of implementation of different elements of the delivery chain for improving targeting performance, especially lowering errors of exclusion. No matter how aptly selected the targeting method, and no matter how good the data or inference it relies on, it cannot deliver good outcomes without good implementation of each step of the delivery chain. Indeed, understanding how crucial delivery systems are comes in part from the literature on age-based social pensions and child allowances, which, despite their universal design, struggle with some of the same practical issues as poverty-targeted programs to get to the desired level of inclusion.

Good delivery systems are important for compliance with several of the principles of the human right to social security. Chapter 4 identifies many aspects of implementation that support accessibility, dignity and autonomy, nondiscrimination and equality, inclusion of vulnerable groups, gender sensitivity, and transparency and accountability as they are understood in the right to social security. For example, providing physical accessibility is important for people living with disability, and materials and staffing for various languages as needed are important for nondiscrimination, dignity, and inclusion of vulnerable groups such as indigenous groups, ethnic minorities, and immigrants. Providing clear information on processes can help people know whether and how to apply or appeal, which will lead to high inclusion and be in keeping with the transparency and accountability standards of human rights. Ensuring that all processes are effectively accessible to women is in keeping with gender sensitive social protection. Indeed, a great deal of the bad reputation of targeting with respect to human rights is earned through insufficient delivery systems rather than inherent in the process of eligibility determination. Human rights perspectives can be especially useful in spurring or guiding improvements in delivery systems.

There is room for substantial improvements in the current practice of delivery systems. The following are among the most important: • To improve outreach and communication so that people who are meant to be served by programs are aware of them and know how to access them • To ensure low transaction costs (the time, travel, and mental bandwidth of those in pursuit of benefits, in calendar time in queue) and improve the client experience of inclusion and dignity • To develop dynamic intake processes so that all who are eligible can apply promptly rather than waiting years for the chance

Overview | 21

• To develop routine or ongoing recertification or exit processes with a periodicity to match the program objectives and expected dynamics of changes in households’ welfare • To prepare in advance for expectable disasters and crises, with triggers and emergency rules of operation laid out • To build the client interface systems and capacities to run the programs well, with good governance and convenience for clients • To upgrade practices in data management and data protections apace with the greater use of technology in delivery systems

Message 6. A range of targeting methods exist; program objectives and the country, social, and political context are likely to influence the choice; and there is no absolute ranking of methods.

The menu of targeting methods is well-established (see table O.1), as are their general advantages and disadvantages. Although the suite of methods has the same names as written about two decades ago, the practice and potential of each is changing as new data, new technology, and new capacities and expectations push them to evolve. Issues on the choice of method are taken up in chapter 5.

Chapter 5 briefly reviews the patterns of which targeting methods have been used where and why. In general, means tests and hybrid means tests are predominant in high-income/high-formality settings and Europe, although they were used in some upper-middle-income countries, such as Brazil, China, and South Africa, even before data systems were developed for verification of means. Proxy means testing developed in the relatively high-inequality and high-capacity countries in Latin America but has spread far beyond. Some view proxy means tests as desirable for bringing data-driven, replicable, technocratic processes to replace previously highly politicized alternatives. Others view them as anathema due to their in-built statistical errors and perceived opacity. Still others view them as an imperfect but realistic approach where other options are unlikely to succeed. Lower income countries use a mix (and often a combination) of proxy means testing and community-based targeting. Community involvement in eligibility determination is highly varied. In some places, communities have a large role in the actual decision making; in others it is less so, although communities may play important roles in outreach or data collection. Geographic targeting is used in various ways—sometimes to select the areas in which a program will work, sometimes to ration the caseload across the areas served, and sometimes both. It can also be important to focus on where administrative resources should be dedicated to improving