Jigisemejiri Program

Improving Targeting Outcomes through Attention to Delivery Systems | 225

Regular assessments of the whole or specific parts of the delivery system through process evaluation, audits, and spot checks are important to inform program administrators about the strengths and weaknesses of the delivery chain. Identifying program implementation bottlenecks can help correct course to prevent systemic bias and challenges that affect targeting outcomes. Box 4.3 provides an illustration of how Mali used

BOX 4.3

Monitoring to Improve Performance in Mali’s Jigisemejiri Program

Mali’s Jigisemejiri program was launched in 2013 in an environment characterized by a paucity of administrative data.a The program offers a good example of how to develop a rich data system by collecting and analyzing information from program beneficiaries and other stakeholders, opening communication channels for data providers to visualize and check their information, and investing in audit or quality control activities that ultimately increase the accuracy, relevance, and use of the data. Although other databases were scarce and interoperability with them was limited, the program administrators at the Unité Technique de Gestion Filets Sociaux made use of field evidence based on a series of activities that improved the program’s data system.

Several audits and data quality control activities were embedded in the program design by including spot checks to review the full implementation process. This included intake, registration, and targeting functions (UTGFS 2014b, 2014c, 2014d); quarterly reports on coverage, payments, and grievancesb as well as profiling of the beneficiary population and assessments of grievances using the program management information systemc; and posttransfer assessment (UTGFS 2014a) based on a random sample of about 800 beneficiaries to be selected from among the first 5,000 beneficiaries, to measure the degree of satisfaction and short-term impact. The program’s monitoring and evaluation plan also includes an independent impact evaluation.d

Before full program rollout (in 2018), the program administrators used all the available data to adjust the program design to improve effectiveness. For example, moving from phase 1 to phase 2, the program administrators revised the communication campaign and training of community leaders on the community-based targeting approach to improve targeting and reach more families with children younger

continued next page

226 | Revisiting Targeting in Social Assistance

BOX 4.3 (continued)

than age five years, introduced a lump sum payment for the committee to cover the basic costs of targeting, and improved communication channels with the local agents in charge of supporting implementation activities. Preliminary results of the International Food Policy Research Institute’s baseline survey (Hidrobo et al. 2015) highlighted the need for a case management system to address chronic undernutrition and anemia.e

a. The program’s objective is the provision of a targeted cash transfer program to the chronic poor and vulnerable population and establishment of a basic system that could be used for other institutions to channel funds and services to the poor population. The Jigisemejiri program targets 62,000 households in a few districts (cercles) in all five regions of the south—Sikasso, Ségou, Mopti, Koulikoro, and Kayes—plus the district of Bamako. The program was implemented in three phases: phase 1 with a coverage of only 5,000 households, phase 2 to reach another 25,000 households, and phase 3 to extend coverage to 32,000 households. b. Summarized in the UGTFS Rapport Annuel de Suivi des Activités, https:// jigisemejiri.org/bibliotheque/. c. See Statistics at https://jigisemejiri.org/statistiques/ and https://rsu.gouv.ml /portail/indicateurs/. d. For the project document, see https://documents.worldbank.org/en /publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/384511468052440939 /mali-emergency-social-safety-nets-project. For impact evaluation reports, see Hidrobo et al. (2015, 2018, 2020). e. The case management system supports home visits by trained agents (social workers/nongovernmental organizations) to households with children younger than age three years to boost nutritional outcomes and promote access to health insurance (Régime d’Assurance Maladie, provided by Agence National d’Assurance Maladie).

monitoring to improve the program as it rolled out. According to Lindert et al. (2020), the main questions of interest are related to how well functions are being implemented and how well adjusted the tools in place for the program are to generate satisfactory results. Questions to be investigated include but are not limited to the following: Is program implementation running smoothly and as designed? Are there information and communication gaps that block people from registration? Is the intake and registration process effectively collecting all the information needed? How do vulnerable groups experience the process of intake and registration in the program? What obstacles do they face and why? Are they satisfied with the program implementation? Were staff properly trained? Are they satisfied with the resources made available? What percentage of intended population is registered? What percentage of the intended population is enrolled in the program? How long does it take from application to eligibility notification? How many applications are processed a