MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMSsocialprotection.org/sites/default/files/publications_files... · 6.1...

MANAGEMENTINFORMATIONSYSTEMS

3| MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS & APPROACHES TO DATA INTEGRATION22

CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4 1. INTRODUCTION 52 DEFINITIONS 62.1 Objectives 63 PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 83.1 Objectives 83.2 Objectives and functions supported 83.3 Key components of a functional programme MIS 103.4 Take-away lessons 114 INTEGRATED SYSTEMS FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 124.1 Objectives 124.2 Definitions:threeapproachestodevelopinganintegratedsystemforinformationmanagement 134.3 Howtheseapproachesrelatetoeachother 174.4 Advantages and risks of data and information integration 204.5 Set-up for ‘full’ integration 224.6 Policyobjectives:integratingwhatandwhy? 214.6.1 Integrationforoversight,coordinationandplanningandM&E 224.6.2 Integration for consolidated targeting 234.6.3 Integrated management of selected operations and services 244.7 Countrycontext:integratinghow? 274.7.1 LackofNationaluniquenumberidentifier(e.g.ID) 284.7.2 Lackofappropriatesafeguardstoensuredatasecurityandprivacy 304.8 Countryexperiencestodate 314.9 Take-awaylessons 375 KEY STEPS WHEN SETTING UP A PROGRAMME MIS OR AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 385.1 Objectives 385.2 Needs assessment and agreement on broad design parameters 395.3 Develop and implement selected solution 425.3.1 Software development 425.3.2 Database/registry creation 435.3.3 Hardware procurement 435.3.4 Telecommunicationssystem(data-sharing)set-up 445.4 Take-away lessons 446 CASE STUDIES 456.1 Zimbabwe’sharmonisedsocialcashtransferschemeanditsMIS 456.2 Kenya’snationalsafetynetprogrammeandits‘singleregistry’ 476.2.1 Backgroundandhistoricalevolution 486.2.2 Institutional arrangements 486.2.3 How Kenya’s single registry is structured in practice 486.2.4 Mainchallengesandlessonslearned 536.3 SouthAfrica’sSOCPEN 546.3.1 ObjectiveandinstitutionalarrangementsofSOCPEN 546.3.2 HowSOCPENisstructuredinpractice 546.3.3 Furtherpushesforintegration:thenationalintegratedsocialinformationsystem 576.3.4 Mainchallengesandlessonslearned 577 CONCLUSIONS 597.1 ImplicationsforSub-SaharanAfrica 60BIBLIOGRAPHY 62

TRANSFORMistheresultofaniterativeprocessofco-creationinvolvingexpertsandpractitionersfromsouthernandeasternAfrica.ThismanualisbasedonadocumentpreparedbyValentinaBarca(OxfordPolicyManagement)andRichardChirchir(DevelopmentPathways),withcontributionsfromThibaultVanLangenhove(ILO).Itdrawsextensivelyfromapublicationonthetopicof‘IntegratedDataandInformationManagementforSocialProtectionpublishedtheAustralianDepartmentofForeignAffairsandTrade(DFAT)(Barca,2017).

TheeditorsoftheTRANSFORMcurriculumseriesareLucaPellerano,LuisFrotaandNunoCunha.ParticipantstoworkshopsinKenya,ZambiaandTanzaniaprovidedusefulcommentsandinputs.The content of thismanual does not reflect the official position of the different organizationssupportingtheTRANSFORMinitiative.

TRANSFORMisapublicgood.AllTRANSFORMmaterialsincludingthismanualarelicensedundertheCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike4.0InternationalLicence.

Youarefreeto:

Share–copyandredistributethematerialinanymediumorformat

Adapt –remix,transform,andbuilduponthematerial

Underthefollowingterms:

Attribution–Youmustgiveappropriatecredit,providealinktothelicense,andindicateif changesweremade.

NonCommercial –Youmaynotusethematerialforcommercialpurposes,unlessexpressly authorizedbythelicensor.

ShareAlike–Ifyouremix,transform,orbuilduponthematerial,youmustdistributeyour contributionsunderthesamelicenseastheoriginal.

Toviewacopyofthislicencevisithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

ForfurtherinformationyoucancontacttheTRANSFORMinitiativeattransform_socialprotection@ilo.orgorvisithttp://socialprotection.org/institutions/transform

Version February 2018

SuggestedCitation:Transform,(2017)“ManagementInformationSystemsandApproachestoDataIntegration-ManualforaLeadershipandTransformationCurriculumOnBuildingandManagingSocialProtectionFloors inAfrica”,availableathttp://socialprotection.org/institutions/transform

1

4 | MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS & APPROACHES TO DATA INTEGRATION 5

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1INTRODUCTION ThereisgrowingrecognitionthatManagementInformationSystems,orMIS,playapivotalroleintheimplementationofsocialprotection(SP)schemes.Infact,programmeMISareincreasinglyviewedasacentralplank thatholds together socialprotectionschemes’coreprocesses i.e.registration,determinationofeligibility,payments, complaints&grievances, andmonitoringand evaluation systems.

Inrecentyearsthisinteresthasexpandedtoencompassanewfocusonintegratedapproachestodataandinformationmanagement,capableofassistingdecisionmakerswithmoreharmonizedandsystematicinformationacrossprogrammestoensurecoordinatedresponsestothemulti-dimensionalvulnerabilitiesofindividualsacrossalifecycle,(UNICEFandWorldBank,2013).

This is in line with an increasing number of countries worldwide adopting national socialprotectionstrategiesandimplementingILORecommendation202(2012)concerningNationalFloorsofSocialProtection, seeking to coordinate interventions fromdifferentministriesandagencies(ILO2015,GarciaandMoore,2012,WorldBank,2015).

However, there is no widely acceptable terminology in the context of SP, especially whenconsideringintegratedapproachestodataandinformationmanagement.Thetendencyisto(Barca,2017):

• Usethesametermsreferringtosystemsthatvarydependingontheirobjective,focus, functionality,maturity,sophisticationandlevelofintegration.Forexample,theacronym ‘MIS’isusedforsystemsthatintegratedataacrossseveralprograms,aswellassystemsfor individual programs.

• Useavarietyofdifferenttermswhenreferringtosystemsthatachievebroadlysimilar functions,withsometimes-differentmethods.Themostcommon‘synonyms’are:Social Registry,SingleRegistry,UnifiedDatabase,ConsolidatedDatabaseandUnifiedRegistry.

All inall,countrieshavecomeupwiththeirowndefinitions–allofwhichserveverywell todescribetailoredcountrysolutions,butnoneofwhicheasilycomparetoexperienceselsewhereintermsofdefiningcorecharacteristics.Thisterminologicalconfusionisalsoexacerbatedbyinadequatepractical anddetaileddocumentationon the subject.Quiteoften, this leads to:(i) confusionon thepurpose,usage,objectives andevaluationofMIS in theSP sector; and(ii)mis-procurement, for examplebecause suppliersmaybebiased towards a technical ICTbasedperspective, strictly packaging them in hardware and software termswith insufficientconsiderationforappropriatenessandcost/benefitanalysisandinstitutionalmatters.Inadditiontoalackofclearterminology,policymakersandtechnocratsalsolackadequateinformationandknowledgeonprogrammeMISandintegratedapproachestoinformation.

ADM Administration and Delivery SystemsAMTOS Assisted Medical OrdersCMS CaseManagementSystemCPF ChildProtectionFundCTM CashandVouchersManualCT-OVC CashTransferforOrphansandVulnerableChildrenDFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and TradeDFID Department for International DevelopmentDSD Department of Social DevelopmentHSCT HarmonizedCashTransferICT InformationandCommunicationTechnologyID Identity ILO InternationalLabourOrganizationLEAP LivelihoodEmpowermentAgainstPovertyM&E MonitoringandEvaluationMIS Management Information System MoLSS Ministry of Labour and Social Services MoU Memorandum of understandingNADRA NationalDatabaseandRegistrationAuthorityNGO Non-GovernmentalOrganizationNISIS National Integrated Social Information System NSNP National Safety Net Program NSPS National Social Protection Strategy OPCT OlderPersonsCashTransferOPM OxfordPolicyManagementOVC OrphansandVulnerableChildrenPDA Personal Digital Assistant PERSAL Pay-Roll SystemPwSD PersonswithSevereDisabilitiesSASSA SouthAfricaSocialSecurityAgencySITA StateInformationTechnologyAgencySOCPEN SocialGrantsPaymentandAdministrationsystemSP Social Protection SSN Social Safety Net TOR Terms of ReferenceUCS UniversalCoverageSchemeUFSP Urban Food Security ProgrammeUNICEF UnitedNationsChildren’sFundWFP WorldFoodProgrammeZIMSTAT Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency

766 | MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS & APPROACHES TO DATA INTEGRATION

DEFINITIONS2.1 OBJECTIVESHavingcompletedthissection,theparticipantwillgainanunderstandingof:

• Thedifferencebetweenadatabase,aregistry,andanMIS• ThedifferencebetweenaprogrammeMISandanintegratedsystemforinformation management

ThereisnogenerallyacceptedterminologytodescribedataandinformationmanagementinthecontextofSP.Therearetwomainreasonsforthisconfusion(Barca,2017).First,theterms‘database,‘registry’and‘MIS’areoftenusedinterchangeablybysocialprotectionpractitioners.However,thesehavedifferentmeaningsandfunctions,asBox1clarifies.Atbothprogrammeandintegratedlevel,dataandinformationmanagementcanonlybeachievedbycombiningthestatic‘datarepository’roleofadatabase/registry(effectivelysynonyms)withthedynamic‘datainterrogation’ role of an MIS.

12

1 It should be noted that this term has been borrowed from the business world, where it is defined as a ‘system that provides information that organisations require to manage themselves efficiently and effectively’.

Box 1: Database, Registry, MIS, Interoperability: definitions

Thispaperdistinguishesbetweenthefollowing:

• Database–asystemtoorganise,storeandretrievelargeamountsofdataeasily

• Register(nowadaysreferredtoasregistry)(atermofpre-ICTorigin)–anofficialwrittenrecordofnames,events and/or transactions

• Inacomputerisedenvironment,databases’and‘registries’areoverlappingconcepts(effectivelysynonyms); bothareforstoringandretrievingdata.

• MIS1 –asystemthattransformsretrieveddatafromaprogram’sdatabase/register(or,insomecases,different databaseslinkedtodifferentmodules)intoinformationthatcanbeusedforefficientandeffectiveprogram management.

• Insocialprotectionliterature,thetermMISisassociatedwithprogram-levelinformationmanagement. Whendiscussingintegratedsolutionsweusethegenericterm‘applicationsoftwareor‘integratedMIS’, referringtothetailoredsolutionthatallowsfortheinput,processingandoutput(e.g.display/presentation) of information.

• Interoperability:theabilityoftwoormoresystems(orcomponents)tocommunicatebyexchangingdata,sothe informationisunderstoodbythereceivingagencyandsubsequentlyusedforitsownbusinesspurposes.

Source: Barca, 2017

Second,similartermsareusedtorefertoprogramme-specificandintegratedapproaches.Forthispaper,weintroduceanewtermtoaddressthisconfusion:

• Integrated System for Information Management:referstothebroadersystemthatenablestheflowandmanagement ofinformationwithintheSocialProtectionsectorandsometimesbeyond,toothersectors.Thesearealsosometimes referred to as ‘integrated social protection information systems’.

Thisistheareawiththegreatestconfusionintheliterature,primarilyasintegrationofinformationmanagementintheSocialProtectionsectorcanbeachievedindifferentways–influencedbythemainobjectivespursuedwithintegration,andbyacountry’scontextandtrajectory.

InthefollowingsectionswefirstuntangletheroleofaprogrammeleveldatabaseandMIS(Section3),thendiscussapproachesto integratingdataacrossthesectortocreateanIntegratedSystemfor InformationManagement(Section4). Ineithercase,weinvitereadersnevertotrustthewordingchosenbyanygivencountrytodescribetheirdataandinformationmanagementsolution,buttoalwaysquestionwhatthatsolutionoffersandwhatfunctionsitperforms.Whatmattersisnottheofficialname,butwhatthesystemissetuptodo:mostimportantlywherethedataisflowingfrom(e.g.whereisitoriginallybeingcollectedandwhatotherdatasourcesisitdrawingfrom)andto(e.g.whohasaccesstothedataandhow).

DEFINITIONS

988

1

| MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS & APPROACHES TO DATA INTEGRATION

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS3.1 OBJECTIVES

Havingcompletedthissection,theparticipantwillgainanunderstandingof:

• TheobjectivesandcorefunctionssupportedbyaprogrammeMIS• ThekeycomponentsofafunctionalprogrammeMIS

3.2 OBJECTIVES AND FUNCTIONS SUPPORTED

AprogrammeMISenablestheflowandmanagementofinformationtosupportkeyprocesseswithinsocialprotectionschemesincluding:

• Identification and registrationofapplicants,usingeitheracensusoranon-demand method2fordatacollection,seealso MODULES&I;

• Eligibility determination and enrolment(i.e.determiningbeneficiariesforthe programme)–seealso MODULESS&Iand MODULEADM;

• Continuous maintenance of Beneficiary Lists: e.g.removalofthosenothosewhoareno longer eligible

• Authentication and compliance monitoring(ifapplicable,e.g.whenconditionality imposed)–seealso MODULEADM;

• Managing payments (e.g.producing“payrolls”,monitoringpaymentreceipts,amounts paid,etc.)-–seealso MODULEADM;

• Managing a grievance/ appeals and redress system – see also ModuleADM;

• Managing on-going programme monitoring and evaluation(e.g.producinglists ofbeneficiarieswhohaveenrolled,whichbenefitshavebeenpaid,levelofpayments, characteristicsofbeneficiaries,etc.…)–seealso MODULEM&E;

• Supporting on-going management and planning(e.g.notifyingmanagerswhena processshouldorhashappenedetc.)–seealso MODULEM&E.

2 A census method means that the programme attempts to visit all households to undertake targeting; an on-demand method means that applicants are expected to visit specific registration points to apply for the programme.

Ultimately,programmeMISsenableharmonizedimplementationandmonitoringofprogrammes,whileensuringtransparencyandgoodgovernanceofSocialProtectionsystems.Infact,severalfunctionalitiesofmodernsocialprotectionprogrammes–suchase-payments–cannotbesetinplaceintheabsenceofaprogrammeMIS.

Moreover,MISdependscriticallyonthequalityofdataonbeneficiaries,andrequiresappropriatequalitychecksandcontrols.Thesecanbeperformedbyroutineauditsselectingrandomdataorbystatisticalanalysisofdeviancesonthelistsofbeneficiariesfollowedbyqualitativeindepth‘spotchecks’ofprocessestodeterminethenatureofthequalitydefaults.WeakorinaccurateinformationcanresultfromweakcontrolsresultingininadequateinformationfromtheMIS(hencethepopularadage‘garbagein,garbageout’).

WhenputtinginplaceMIS,itisimportanttobeclearabouttheSPprogramme’sprocedures,designparametersandoperationalprocessesfromtheoutset.Infact,aprogrammeMISisareflectionoftheoperationalmanualoftheprogramme,supportedbyappropriatetechnology.ThisimpliesthattheMISfromoneprogrammecannotbeeasilyadaptedforanotherprogramme,unlesstheyhaveaverysimilarbusinessprocess.

Conversely,notallprogrammefunctionsarealwayssupportedbyprogrammeMIS,dependingonprogrammeobjectives,set-upandwhat‘Modules’areprioritisedduringtheMISdesign.However,processesandproceduresarefixedintime,asBox2belowtestifies.MIScanbeadaptedtofollowchangingprogrammerequirements–e.g. increasinglymovingcoreprocessesfromapaper-based to an electronic platform – and are an important platform to support cost-effective programme expansion and a pre-requisite for cross-programme integration, as Section 1 further explores.

Box 2: LEAP’s evolving approach to registration and payments - Ghana

TheLivelihoodEmpowermentAgainstPoverty(LEAP)programme,theflagshipcashtransferprogrammeinGhana,initiallyreliedonpaperworkforthecompletionofitsdatacollectionquestionnaireaswellasfortherecordingofpaymentsprocessed(beneficiariesconfirmedreceiptofthetransferviaaninkthump-printonthehardcopyofthepay-rolllist).Thedatacapturedonthequestionnairewascentrallyenteredintothedatabase,the“povertyscore”wascalculatedandeligibilitydetermined.TheMISwasusedtoelectronicallyproducethepayrolllistbeforeeachpayment.ThePostOfficeusedhardcopiesofthepayrolllisttodeliverthepaymentincashtothebeneficiariesonpreviouslyannouncedpaydays.Onthebasisofthehardcopies,thePostOfficethenproducedpaymentreportsthatsummarizedtheinformationofthepaymentsmade(numberofbeneficiariespaidateachpayment,amountspaidetc.).Discussionsarenowunderwaytorecordthedataelectronicallywhenregisteringpotentialbeneficiariesandtointroduceelectronicpayments:

• Fordatacollection,thiswouldrequireinvestinginhand-helddevicesandsoftwarethatprogrammestaffwoulduse whenconductinghouseholdinterviews,andtrainingthestaffhowtorecordtheinformation.Dataaccuracyands peedoftheoverallprocessisexpectedtoimproveasaresult.

• Forelectronicpayments,LEAPisconsideringofferingbeneficiariesthechoicebetweenmobilephonepaymentsor cash.Foreither,paymentconfirmationwouldbeissuedelectronically,allowingforinstantaneousupdateofthe paymentinformationinthedatabaseandfullyautomatedcompilationofpaymentreports.

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

13

11| MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS & APPROACHES TO DATA INTEGRATION10 | MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS & APPROACHES TO DATA INTEGRATION

3.3 KEY COMPONENTS OF A FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMME MIS

Ultimately,aprogrammeMISisanapplicationsoftwarethatfunctionsthankstotheinterplayofseveralcomponentsthataretightlyrelated(notethattheseapplytointegratedsystemstoo,seeSection1).Welistanddiscussthesebelow,visualisingtheirinterplayinFigure1andfurtherdiscussinggoodpracticesforeachinSection5.3(ChirchirandKidd,2011andBarca,2017):

c. Information requirements: i.e.whatdataneedstobestoredandmanaged.Thesearedefinedbyprogrammestaffon thebasisofprogrammeobjectivesandthecorefunctionsthatneedtobesupported.Forexample,anMISsupportinga complaintsandappealsprocessoracomprehensiveM&Esystemwillhaveadditionalinformationrequirementscompared toaprogrammethatusesanMISonlyforregistration,enrolmentandpaymentpurposes.

d. Software application (‘MIS’):asdefinedinSection2“Definitions”(above),thesoftwareapplicationtransformsthedata thatisretrievedfromaprogramme’sdatabase(orinsomecases,differentdatabaseslinkedtodifferent‘modules’)into informationthatcanbeusedforefficientandeffectivemanagement.Itcantakemanydifferentformsdependingonthe informationrequirementsandfunctionsitisdesignedtoperform(eachoperationalisedwithinadifferent‘module’). SuchsoftwarecaneitherbedevelopedusingproprietaryapplicationsorOpenSourcesoftware.

e. Database: asdefinedinSection2“Definitions”(above).Thisisasystemintendedtoeasilyorganize,store,andretrieve largeamountsofdata.SPprogrammescaneitheruseproprietarydatabases(MicrosoftAccessorOracle)orOpenSource.

f. Hardware infrastructure: thisreferstothenecessaryinfrastructuretosecurelycollectandstorelargeamountsofdata (computers,PDAs,servers,etc.).Optionsforhardwaretechnologyvary,dependingonthesizeofschemes,theoverall context(remoteness,powersupply,etc.),levelsofsecurityguaranteedandtheparticularoperationstobeundertaken.

g. Telecommunications System:thisincludesthenetworkinfrastructure–localareanetworkandwideareanetwork–that enablesthenecessarylinksbetweenthesoftwareandthedatabasesthatfeedintoit.Thechoiceofsuchsystemdepends onlocalcontext(e.g.availabilityandreliabilityofinternet).

Figure 1: Key components of a functional programme MIS

Source: Adapted by authors from Chirchir, R. and Kidd, S. (2011) Good Practice in the Development of Management Information systems for Social Protection.

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

3.4 TAKE-AWAY LESSONS

• AnMIS(‘ProgrammeMIS’inthecontextofsocialprotection)isasystemthattransformsthedatathatisretrieved fromaprogramme’sdatabaseintoinformationthatcanbeusedforefficientandeffectivemanagement

• AprogrammeMISservesdifferentfunctions,including:Identificationandregistrationofapplicants;eligibility determinationandenrolment;authenticationandcompliancemonitoring(ifapplicable);managingpayments, complaintsandappealsandM&E,andsupportingon-goingmanagementandplanning.Ultimately,programme MISsenablestreamlinedimplementationandmonitoringofprogrammeswhileensuringtransparencyandgood governance of Social Protection systems.

• Ultimately,aprogrammeMISisanapplicationsoftwarethatfunctionsthankstotheinterplayofseveral componentsthataretightlyrelated.Theseinclude:SPprogrammes’informationrequirements,databases, hardware,andnetworkinfrastructure-allmanagedbyaninstitution’sstaff.

Staff

Social ProtectionInformation Requirements

Management Information System

Hardware infrastructure (servers,computers,printers)

Database (oracle,SQL,Server,Adabas)

Telecommunication systems (localareanetworks,wideareanetworks)

Application software (input,process,&outputinformaton)

131212

1


INTEGRATED SYSTEMS FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT4.1 OBJECTIVES

Havingcompletedthissection,theparticipantwillhaveanunderstandingof:

• Thethreemainapproachestodevelopanintegratedsystemforinformationmanagement inthesocialprotectionsector.

• TheadvantagesandrisksofdataandinformationintegrationintheSocialProtection sector

• Whatthemaindriversofintegrationareandhowtheseaffectdesignchoices

• Howcountrycontextaffectsdesignchoices

4.2 DEFINITIONS: THREE APPROACHES TO DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Theword ‘single registry’hasgraduallybecomethemainwordusedbysocialprotectionpolicy-makersandpractitioners todescribeintegratedapproachestodataandinformationmanagementinthesocialprotectionsector.Thiswordismisleading,asbox3explains,andthechallengeofthispaperistounpackit’smeaningindifferentcontexts.

Box 3: ‘Single registries’ – why is the word misleading?

Source: Barca, 2017

Dependingoncountrycontextandobjectivespursued(seeSection1),therearetwomainapproachestodevelopingadatabase/registrysupportingan IntegratedSystemfor InformationManagementwithin theSocialProtectionsector.AsdefinedwithinBarca,2017,theseare:

1. Integrated Beneficiary Registry:adatabase/registrywhichiscreatedbyintegratingprogrammeMISsofseveraldifferent existingschemes,meaningintegrationisonlyachievedacrossdataandinformationonbeneficiaries(programme recipients)3.Themainobjectiveofsuchintegrationistoprovidecoordinationandoversight(e.g.M&E)andintegrate selectedoperationsandservicesacrossprogrammes.Inpractice,IntegratedBeneficiaryRegistriesdecentralisetheprocess ofdatacollection(individualprogramsareinchargeofthis)butcentraliseselectedservicesbyconsolidatingexistingdata. ExamplesincludeKenya(‘SingleRegistry’,seeCaseStudy),MauritiusandSeychelles.

2. Social Registry:adatabase/registrywhichcollectsandhousescomprehensive(i.e.notprogramspecific)informationon potentialbeneficiarieswithinthecountry.Inoppositefashiontointegratedbeneficiaryregistries,theyfront-endand centralisedataintegrationbycollectingdataforanationaldatabase/registerthatisthendrawnuponbyspecificprograms4

(seeFigure2).Theirprimaryfunctionistosupportandconsolidatetheinitialsocialprotectionimplementationphases ofintakeandregistration.Theycanalsosupporttheassessmentofneedsandconditionsforthepurposesofdetermining potentialeligibilityforenrolmentinselectedsocialprogramsExampleisBrazil’s‘CadastroUnico’andIndonesia’s‘Unified Database’.

Countries’approachestointegrateddataandinformationmanagementinthesocialprotectionsectorhaveoftenbeenreferredtoas‘SingleRegistries’.Here,weexplicitlychoosetoavoidtheuseofthisterminology.Why?

• ItwasbornasaliteraltranslationofBrazil’s‘CadastroUnico’.InrecentyearsCadastroUnicoisnolongertranslated asSingleRegistrybutas‘UnifiedRegistry’.

• Ithasbeenusedtorefertoverydifferentapproachestointegrationindifferentcountries,sodoesnotensureclarity. Eg.Kenya’ssolutioniscalleda‘SingleRegistry’buthasadifferentset-upandfunctionalitycomparedtoBrazil’s CadastroUnico.

• Keystakeholdersarerapidlymovingawayfromtheterm(WorldBank,ILO,etc.)–thoughithasstuckindescribing countrysolutionstointegration(e.g.Kenya).

• ‘Singleregistries’arenotnecessarily‘single’sincetheyoftendonotcomprehendallsocialprotectionprogramsin a country and are not a substitute for individual MISs.

• ‘Single registries’ do not necessarily entail a ‘single’ process for targeting or unifying operations across programs.

• Theword‘registry’alonedoesnotcoverthefullfunctionalityofdataandinformationmanagementinthesocial protection sector.

3 Note this is not necessarily the case, as data on applicants or anybody registered could also be integrated. But this case has not been encountered within country practice.4 In our 2014 report, we discussed this in Section 2.3.2 as the ‘Centralised Model’ (Barca and Chirchir, 2014).

INTEGRATED SYSTEMS FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

14

1514 | MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS & APPROACHES TO DATA INTEGRATION| MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS & APPROACHES TO DATA INTEGRATION

Box 4: Integrated beneficiary registry – what it is and is not

Whatitis:

• Itisaregistryofbeneficiariesacrossseveralprograms

• ItintegratesdatafromtheprogramMISsofseveralprograms,adoptinga‘serviceintegration’approach

• ItsupportsintegratedM&Eandplanning,andcanbedesignedtosupportintegrationofdeliverysystems (e.g.paymentsandgrievances)

• Itisabuildingblockthathelpsachieveintegration.Itsfullpotentialasan‘InformationSystem’isonlyunleashed whenusedtogetherwithasoftwareapplication(‘IntegratedMIS’)whichenablesdynamiclinksintootherdatabases, systematicallytransformsdataintoinformationandanalysesandusestheinformation

Whatitisnot5:

• Itisnotnecessarilycomprehensive(i.e.ensuring100percentcoverageofpopulation)asitonlyincludesexisting programbeneficiaries6

• Itcannotbeusedfor‘targeting’ordeterminationof(potential)eligibilityforprograms,becauseitonlycontains informationonpeopleorhouseholdswhohavealreadybeendeemedeligiblebyexistingprograms(beneficiaries andnotpotentialbeneficiaries)

• Itdoesnotnecessarilyincludedatafromallsocialassistanceprogramsinacountry(someprogramsmaynothave beenintegrated)

• Itdoesnotnecessarilyincludedatafromsocialinsurancebeneficiaries(asthisdatamaynothavebeenlinked)

• Itisnotnecessarilyhighlyintegratedwithothergovernmentdatabases(e.g.civilregistry,taxauthority,etc.).

• ItisnotnecessarilyasubstituteforindividualprogramdatabasesandMISs(unlessspecificallydesignedtodoso, itcannotsupportprogram-specificdeliverysystems).

• Itisnotnecessarily‘national’sincesocialprotectionprograms(anddatacollectedforregistration)aresometimes targetedgeographically

5 For all the statements below where we state ‘not necessarily’ we mean this can be achieved if explicitly pursued.6 It could be if 100% of the population were beneficiaries (e.g. universal guaranteed minimum income).

Box 5: Social registry – what it is and is not

Whatitis:

• Itisaregistry/databaseofallpeopleandhouseholdsregistered(thepercentageofpopulationregisteredwill dependonthedatacollectionapproachandtheuserprogrammeneeds)

• Itsprimaryfunctionistosupporttheinitialimplementationphasesofintakeandregistration,andassessmentof needsandconditionsforthepurposesofdeterminingpotentialeligibilityforenrolmentinselectedsocialprograms (‘targeting’)

• Itaimstocollect,recordandstoreupdatedandhistoricalinformationonindividualandhouseholdcharacteristics andcircumstances,andverifiesandchecksinformationconsistency

• Itadoptsa‘dataintegration’approach(throughasharedmasterdatasystem)

• Itisabuildingblockthathelpsachieveintegration.Itsfullpotentialasan‘InformationSystem’isonlyunleashed whenusedtogetherwithasoftwareapplicationwhichenablesdynamiclinkstootherdatabases,systematically transformsdataintoinformationandanalysesandusestheinformation(seeSection4.5)

Whatitisnot7:

• Itisnotnecessarilycomprehensive(i.e.ensuring100percentcoverageofpopulation)unlessanationalcensus surveyisconductedcoveringthewholepopulation.

• Itisnotjustalistofbeneficiaries(eligiblepeoplewhohavebeenselectedforsocialprotectionprograms) –i.e.itincludesdataonpotentialeligiblehouseholdstoo

• Itdoesnotnecessarilyenableanintegratedoverviewofwhoisreceivingwhatacrossdifferentprograms,asthe maindataflowisfromthesocialregistrytoprogrammeMISs,notbackagain.

• Itdoesnotnecessarilyprovidedataforallsocialassistanceprogramsinacountry(someprogramsmayretaintheir ownregistrationanddatacollection)

• Itisnotnecessarilyhighlyintegratedwithothergovernmentdatabases(e.g.civilregistry,taxauthority,etc).

• Itdoesnotnecessarilyofferacurrentsnapshotofpoverty,unlessdataiskeptsufficientlyuptodate

• It does not necessarily entail integrating operations across programs and is not a substitute for individual program registries and MISs

• Itisnotnecessarily‘national’sincesocialprotectionprograms(andthereforedatacollectedbythesocial registry)aresometimestargetedgeographically

Source: Barca, 2017

Source: Barca, 2017

7 For all the statements below where we state ‘not necessarily’ we mean this can be achieved if explicitly pursued.

INTEGRATED SYSTEMS FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT INTEGRATED SYSTEMS FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT


Box 6: Indonesia’s ‘Unifi ed Database’, a Social Registry

Source: Barca, 2017

Onetechnicalapproachtodevelopingasocialregistryistosourcedatathroughinteroperabilityofexistinggovernmentdatabases:i.e.ensuringthatthesecan‘talktoeachother’(sharedata)effectively.Wedefinethisa‘virtual’socialregistry’,anapproachthatcanbeusedbycountrieswishingtohaveacomprehensive(100percentpopulation),crosssectorandproactive(linkedtolife-cycleevents)overviewoftheirpopulation.Theamountofinformationconsolidatedbasedonthisvirtualintegrationissufficienttodetermineeligibilityforuniversalsocialassistanceprograms,asforArgentina’schildallowanceandThailand’shealthinsurancebeneficiaryregistryschemes(seeBox7),butnotforpoverty-targetedprograms.Whenthisisthecase,informationfromseveralsourcesisconsolidatedandfurtherdataisthencollectedinordertodetermine(targeted)eligibilityintosocialprograms(Barca,2017).

Box 7: Thailand’s national health insurance registry: a virtual social registry

Source: ILO (2015) Building Social Protection Brief: ‘A national health insurance benefi ciary registry based on national identifi cation numbers: Thailand’.9

Indonesia’sunifieddatabase(UDB)–theBasisDataTerpadu(BDT)–wasdesignedtoimprovethetargetingsystemofIndonesia’smainpovertyalleviationprogrammes.Theobjectiveofestablishingtheregistrywastoreducepovertytargetingby8-10%by2014.TheUDBnowcovers24millionhouseholds(93millionindividualsor40percentofpopulation)locatedinover77,000villagesnationwide–makingitoneofthelargestdatabasesintheworld.TheUDBdatacollectionapproachisacensussurveyofhouseholdspre-identifiedaspoor,butthecountrymaybemovingtowardsanon-demandsystem.Thedatabaseactsasasocialregistryandintegratesdatacollectionandeligibilitydeterminationacrossselectedsocialassistanceprogramsandcommunityhealthinsurancescheme,butdatafromtheseschemesisnotsharedbackwithUDB,socomprehensiveoverviewofbeneficiariesacrossprogramsisnotpossible.TheUDBhasalsorecentlybeenintegratedwiththecountry’snationalIDdatabase,whichisprimarilyusedfordataverificationpurposes.

• BuiltonapartnershipbetweenThailand’sMinistryofInteriorandsocialhealthprotectionschemes,the country’s nationalhealthinsurancebeneficiaryregistryfacilitatesaccesstohealthcareforall.

• Launchedin2001,theUniversalCoverageScheme(UCS)coversthe76percentofthepopulationwhoarenot coveredbyexistingsocialhealthprotectionschemes.UCSbeneficiariesareidentifiedbyextractingdatafromthe nationalpopulationdatabasemaintainedbytheMinistryofInteriorand–usingthecountry’s13-digitnationalID number8asa‘uniqueID’(seealsoSection4.7.1)–removingindividualswhoalreadybenefitfromotherschemes. TheNationalHealthSecurityOffice–anautonomousinstitution–wascreatedanddesignatedtocompileand maintaintheresultingregistry.

• Beyondhelpingtoverifyeligibility,thenationalIDnumberisalsousedbyhealth-careproviderstotrackdelivered services,settleclaims,andbuildasharedmedicalrecordforeachpatient.

8This unique 13-digit identifi cation number is generated for each Thai citizen at the time that their birth is registered in the national civil registration database. National ID cards are issued to citizens when they reach seven years of age. Non-Thai residents and foreigners can also be issued with ad hoc ID numbers.9Available at socialprotection.org

4.3 HOW THESE APPROACHES RELATE TO EACH OTHER

Asbrieflymentionedabove, theseapproaches todevelopingan IntegratedSystem for InformationManagementwithin theSocialProtectionsectorarenotmutuallyexclusive,andcanevolveovertime.Forexample,countryconsolidatinginformationfromexistingprogramsusinganintegratedbeneficiaryregistryapproachmaydecidetocoordinatedatacollectionactivitiesandmovetowardsasocialregistryapproach.Thisapproachmaythenincreaseitslevelofinteroperabilitywithothergovernmentdatabasesand takeon featuresofavirtual social registry,ashasbeen thecase inChile,where themajorityofdata for the‘RegistroSocialdeHogares’isnowsourcedthroughexistingadministrativedatabases.

• Highlevelsofinteroperabilitycanbeachievedwithinallofthethreeapproaches.

The different development of integrated beneficiary registries, social registries and virtual social registries are representedvisually in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Integrated benefi ciary registry, social registry and virtual social registry

Source: Barca, 2017 Note: Boxes indicate databases; circles indicate MIS. All arrows have been portrayed as monodirectional here (one-way data fl ow), though this is not necessarily the case.



Moreover,theextentandtypeofintegrationultimatelyachieveddependsonthenumberandtypeoflinkagesestablishedwithotherdatabases–seetheTablebelowforimportantexamples.

Table 1: What type of integration can be achieved? Comparing Social Registries, Integrated Beneficiary Registries and Virtual Social Registries

INTEGRATED BENEFICIARY REGISTRIES

SOCIAL REGISTRIES

VIRTUAL SOCIAL REGISTRIES

Overview of beneficiariesacrossprogrammes and integratedM&E

Yes Only if Registry receives data from programme MISs

Only if Virtual Social Registry also receives data from programme MISs

Integrated process for eligibility determination across programmes

No (eligibilityisdeterminedatprogrammelevel,thenintegrated)

Yes Yes for universal programmes. Additional info needed for means testing

Integrating operations and services across existingprogrammes(e.g.payments,grievances)

Yes (ifpursuedaspolicyobjective)

Only if Registry receives data from programme MISs

Only if Registry also receives data from programme MISs

Integrating policy across Social Protection sector

Only if Registry linked to all social assistance programmes and Social Insuranceregistries,etc.

Only if Registry linked to all social assistance programmes and Social Insurance,etc.

Only if Registry linked to all social assistance programmes and Social Insurance,etc.

Integrationwithothersector MISs

Only if Integrated MIS enablesthis

Only if Integrated MIS enablesthis

Yes(depthwilldependonwhatMISsaremadeinteroperable)

Source: Barca, 2017

Box 8: Comparison to a country's population

• Tobetterunderstandtherelationshipbetweensocialregistries,integratedbeneficiaryregistriesandvirtualsocial registries,itcanbeusefultorepresentthemagainstthewiderpopulation(whichcanbepotentiallyreachedby virtualsocialregistries).InFigure3:

• Thewidestredcircleisacountry’swholepopulation(richandpoor).Anyinteroperablesystemensuringthe creationofavirtualsocialregistrycouldpotentiallyreach100percentofthispopulationbylinkingtoa country’s national ID and/or civil registry

• Thenextbluecircleisthepopulationincludedinacountry’ssocialregistry.Thisis100percentofthetotal populationinafewcases(redandbluecirclesoverlap)–notablywherecomprehensivecensussurveysare completed–butmostoftenfocusesonthesub-populationofthosewhoarerelativelypoorerandprimarily eligible for means-tested social assistance programs

• Thesmallestgreencirclerepresentsthepopulationincludedinacountry’sintegratedbeneficiaryregistry: thesumofallthebeneficiariesofthesocialprotectionprogramswhoseMISshavebeenintegrated

• Thegreydottedcirclerepresentsacountry’seligiblepopulation(thosewhoareentitledtoreceivesomeform ofsocialassistancebenefitbasedonthetargetingcriteriaofanyoftheexistingprograms).10Theareathat doesnotoverlapwiththegreenorthebluelinerepresentshouseholdswhoshouldbeincludedbutarenot (exclusionerrors).Theareawithinthebluecirclethatdoesnotoverlapwiththegreyonerepresents householdswhoareincludedinthesocialregistrybutnoteligiblebasedonexistingeligibilitycriteria (theycouldbeifthesechanged).Allbeneficiaryhouseholds(greencircle)areeligible(unlessthereareinclusion errors,notfiguredhere).

Figure 3: How social registries and integrated beneficiary registries compare to a country’s total and

Social registry Integratedbeneficiaryregistry

Country’spopulation (Virtual Social Registry)

Eligible population for targeted programmes (e.g.‘poor’)

Barca, 2017

10In cases of universal coverage, this grey dotted line would correspond to the outer red circle.



4.4 ADVANTAGES AND RISKS OF DATA AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION

IntegrationofinformationanddatawithintheSPsectorcanbringpolicyandoperationalgains.AsdiscussedwithinBarca,2017,from a policy perspective,advantagescouldincludetheabilityto:

• applyapotentiallymoreequitableapproachtodistributingresourcesbasedonobjectiveandcomparableinformation, addressingtheunevenandunequalprovisionofsocialprotectionacrosssocialgroupsandadministrativejurisdictions

• increaseresponsivenessandinclusivenessofinterventionstoservethechronicallypoor,servethosestructurallyvulnerable topovertyandrespondtoindividualshocks,suchasjobloss,disability,childbearing,oldage,orlargecrises(forexample, naturaldisastersorconflict)

• ensureuniversalcoverageandsupportimplementationoftheSocialProtectionFloor,potentiallycoordinatingsocial assistance and social insurance

• build a stronger link to complementary institutional frameworks and wider social and economic policies11

• increasetransparencyandaccountability,sinceprograminformationcanbemoreeasilysharedandcompared

• improvethe“image”ofthesocialprotectionsystem,ascitizensbetterunderstandtheirentitlements

• increaseknowledgeonpovertyandvulnerabilitybasedonaccesstothelargeamountofinformationavailable.

From an operational perspective,advantagesincludetheabilityto:

• facilitateoversightofmultipleschemesandreporttopolicymakers

• improvebudgetplanningandabilitytomodelandtestpolicychanges

• decreasetheburdenonstaff(e.g.lesspaperwork,lessmanualreporting,etc.)

• decreasetheburdenonpotentialapplicants(e.g.canapplyforseveralprogrammesatonce,lessdocumentsneeded, better/coordinated information on entitlements

• avoidduplicationofeffort(forexample,withdatacollectionactivities)andpotentiallyestablisha‘commonentrypoint’for social protection

• establishcommonsystemsacrossallschemes(e.g.paymentsystem,grievancemechanisms,etc.),increasingefficiencyand saving money

• bettermanageerrorandfraudandmonitormultiplepayments(keepingtrackofwhoisreceivingwhat)

• furtherdigitaliseservicedelivery,potentiallyreachingouttocitizensinnewways(e.g.mobilephones)

• ensurereinforcingmeasuresand/orcomplementaryinterventionstomultipledisadvantagedhouseholds

• enablebeneficiariestotransitionbetweenschemesastheircircumstanceschange

11 SP systems have the potential for maximizing outcomes and impacts if they are conceived as integral components of nationaldevelopment and poverty reduction strategies, linked with complementary programmes (e.g.: livelihood promotion, labour market and intermediation programmes, food security programmes, etc.) and macro policy determinants (macroeconomic stability, economic growth, etc.)”. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2009.

• establishmoreeffectiveemergencyresponses(forexample,bydirectingadditionalpaymentstosocialprotectionrecipients inareasaffectedbyanemergencyforalimitedperiod)andcontext-basedservices.

However, severalchallengesand riskscanemergewhenembarkingonsuchaprocessofdata integrationwithin thesocialsectors.Theseinclude:

12 Interoperability is a characteristic of a product or system, whose interfaces are completely understood, to work with other productsor systems, present or future, in either implementation or access, without any restrictions.13 A large whole-of-government information and communications technology system is unrealistic and risks being too complex to be useful. Instead, e-government, for the purposes of this paper, means a set of policies and frameworks that ensure interoperability of multiple government sector systems and use of IT to provide services to citizens.


• Increasingcostsandcomplexityattheinitialdevelopmentstages(andpotential‘failure’)–callsforhighcapacity,strongpolicyleadershipandinstitutionalcoordination–Attention: In certain cases, a more gradual and progressive approach is needed. It will be difficult to implement an Integrated System for Information Management when the underlying institutions have very rudimentary program definitions and guidelines, weak programme management systems, and institutions tend to compete in context of poor leadership over and above the different departments. and the possible coordination problems and escalation of costs must be taken into account.

Developingintegratedapproachesinthosecontextsentailscostswithnegotiationandarbitration,whichmaybeprohibitive.ThematurityofICTdevelopmentindifferentinstitutions,managementcomplexitiesincludingmaintenanceoftechnology,back-upsandthepossiblecoordinationproblemsandescalationofcostsmustbetakenintoaccount.

• increasingriskstodataprivacyandsecurity–misusingorlosinginformation,potentiallyexposinghouseholdstofurther vulnerability(e.g.‘surveillancestate’)

• risksofmultipleexclusionfromallsocialsectorschemesandsystematicexclusionofcertaintypesofhouseholds,and potentiallossofspecificityintheobjectivesofdifferentsocialprotectioninterventions(ifintegrateddataisusedfor determinationofeligibilityacrossprogrammes,especiallyincensusbasedpovertydeterminationcriteriaasafirstfilter). Thisisbecausesocialpolicyinterventionscanaddressdifferentsocialobjectivesbeyondtheissueofpoverty–for examplehelpimprovingthedignityoflifeofdisabledpeople,empoweringandprotectingagainstbadsocialpractices, abuse or negligence of certain groups.

Moreover,theextenttowhichthebenefitsofinformationintegrationarefeltgreatlydependsonthepracticalset-upforintegrationandontheultimateuseoftheintegratedsystem.Toconclude,itisimportantnottolosesightoftheultimateaimofintegratingdataandinformationmanagementsystemsforsocialprotection:collectingandsharinginformationtosupportsocialobjectives,includingimprovingthestandardsoflifeofthepoorestandmostvulnerablecitizen,protectingagainstliferisks,empoweringthemandachievingsocialtransformation.

4.5 SET-UP FOR ‘FULL’ INTEGRATION

Potentially,thegreatertheinterconnectivity,thegreaterarethegainsinefficiencyandeffectivenessofservicedelivery.Thekeyissueisthereforethelevelofcoordinationandinteroperability12achieved,notthecreationofasuper-sizedsystemordatabasethatservesallpurposes.13Itdoesnotmatterwhetherthesystemisset-upasa‘SocialRegistry’,‘IntegratedBeneficiaryRegistry’or‘VirtualSocialRegistry’-whatmattersisthattheapproachchosen:

• respondstoacountry’sneeds(seeSection4.6),• isappropriatetoitscontext(seeSection4.7)and• isaffordableandsustainable(seeSection5)

AsystemthatguaranteesfullintegrationwithintheSocialProtectionsectorandbeyond,inaccordancewiththerighttoprivacy,wouldensuretheapplicationsoftware(‘IntegratedMIS’)establishesadirect(e.g.webservice)linkto:

• All Social Assistance ProgrammeMISsandrelateddatabases:tokeeptrackofwhoisreceivingwhat,potentiallyintegrate selectedservices,andenableadequateM&Eandplanning


• Social Insurance MISs andrelateddatabases:tointegratesocialassistanceandsocialinsuranceandensurealifecycleand comprehensiveapproachtoSocialProtection

• Any other relevant Government MISsandrelateddatabases(e.g.CivilRegistry,TaxAuthority,etc.):tocollectand cross-checkdata,enhanceaccountability,andenableacomprehensiveapproachtoSocialPolicyplanning.

Thiscanmostrobustlybeachievedusingeachcitizen’sNationalIDnumberasauniqueidentifier(seeSection4.7.1formoredetailsandcritique),allowingforinstantaccessformoreup-to-datedata,withinformationflowinginbothdirections–conditionalonthepermission-levelofeachuser.

4.6 POLICY OBJECTIVES: INTEGRATING - WHAT AND WHY?

It is evident that integration is mainly a policy issue requiring political and institutional arrangements before technicalconsiderations,meaningthateffectivesystemsfordataandinformationmanagementcannotoperateinapolicy/institutionalandprogrammatic vacuum. In this sectionweoutline the threemain andoverlappingobjectivespursuedbypolicy-makersaimingtoachieveintegration,andtheapproachestointegrationthatcansupporttheseBarca,2017.

1. Providingoversight:Integratingtohaveanoverviewofwhoisreceivingwhat,coordinatinginterventions,facilitating planningandmoregenerallyprovidingcombinedmonitoringandevaluation(M&E)acrossprograms.Ex.KenyaNational Safety Net Single Registry.

• Achievablethrougha)AnintegratedBeneficiaryRegistry;b)aSocialRegistryorVirtualSocialRegistrywhichexchanges datawithProgrammeMISs(oftennotthecase)

2. Consolidationoftargetingprocessessotheyservemultiplesocialprograms.Therationalehereistoavoidtheuseof differentandpossiblyconflictingtargetingmethods,increasingscaleandthuscostefficiencyoftargetingtools.Theaimis tocreateandmaintainadatabaseofpoorhouseholds,whichcanbeusedfortargetingofnewprograms.

• Achievablethrough:a)ASocialRegistry;b)AVirtualSocialRegistrywithnoadditionaldatacollection(onlyuniversal non-meanstestedprogrammes);c)AVirtualSocialRegistrywithadditionaldatacollection

3. Integratingdatamanagementtointegrateoperationsandservices.ThisisinlinewiththeconceptoftheSingleWindow Serviceswithinthesocialprotectionsectorandbeyond.

• Achievablethrough(whenthisisapolicyobjective):a)AnIntegratedBeneficiaryRegistry;b)aSocialRegistryorVirtual SocialRegistrywhichexchangesdatawithProgrammeMISs(oftennotthecase

Below,webrieflyoutlinekeyconsiderationsthatneedtobemadewhenattemptingtoachieveeitherormultipleoftheseobjectives.

4.6.1 Integration for oversight, coordination and planning and M&E

Asshownabove,onlywhendataissharedbackfromindividualprogrammeMIStothenationalRegistry(alwaysthecaseforIntegratedBeneficiaryRegistries,butoftennotthecaseforSocialRegistriesorVirtualRegistries) it ispossibletoprovideanintegratedoverviewofprogrammebeneficiaries tounderstandwho is receivingwhatand feed intoSocialProtectionpolicyplanning.

However,thisrequirementaloneisnotsufficient.Evencomplete,high-qualitydatahavenovalueunlesstheycanbeconvertedintoinformationthatisusefulformakingdecisionsandimprovingprograms(Villalobosetal,2010)andpolicy.Whatevertheintegrationset-up,effectivesystemsfortheon-goinganalysisanduseofexistingdataalsoneedtobedeveloped.Goodpracticetoensureadequatereportinganduseofdataacrossgovernmentinclude(OPM,2015):

a. ClearlyidentifyingdataneedsandreportingrequirementsofeachactorandcateringtothosewithinanoverarchingM&E framework

Figure 4: An example of Chile’s geo-referenced reporting system

4.6.2 Integration for consolidated targeting

Oneof theprimary rolesofsocial registries (asopposedto integratedbeneficiary registries—seeabove) is tosupport thegatewayphasesofintake/registrationanddeterminationofeligibilityacrosssocialsectorprograms.Manysocialregistriesscoreorrankhouseholdsregisteredbasedontheirlevelsofpovertyandvulnerabilityatcentrallevel,toavoidpoliticalinterference.Theoutcomeisacompiled listofpotentiallyeligiblehouseholdsorarankedlistofallhouseholds.Thisoutputcanthenbesharedwithindividualprogramimplementersordecentralisedcounterparts,whousethenational listasabasisforeligibilitydeterminationandoftenadaptittotheirpurposesby(Barca,2017):

a. addingfurthercriteria:forexample,pregnantwomenorpeopleaged65andover

b. validatinglistsprovided:forexample,publicisingthelistinthecommunityandgiving30daysforpeopletoobject,calling acommunitymeetingorconductinghouseholdvisits

c. choosingwhatpercentageofhouseholdsrankednationallyaretobeincluded:forexample,onlythepoorest10percent.

Thistwo-tieredtargetingapproachenablesacommonmethodologytobedevelopedacrossprogramswhilemaintainingtheflexibilityneededbyindividualprogramsordecentralisedunitsofgovernmenttotargetspecifichouseholdtypes.


b. Developingarelevantandtimelyreportingsystem(e.g.ModulewithintheintegratedMIS),informedbyconstanttesting bydatausers.SeeforexampleKenya’sonlineSingleRegistry(Figure9inCaseStudy)

c. Providingadequatelydisaggregateddata,cateringtotheplanningneedsoflocalgovernmentsandotherdatausers. Thisiscriticalifwewantlocalgovernmentstobesupportiveofthesystem,whichmeansanalysisofthedataneedsatthe locallevel.d. Presentingreportsineasytoreadformatse.g.dashboards,chartsandgraphs

e. UsingGISandgeo-referenceddatawherepossible(e.g.Uruguay,Indonesia,Chile,Brazil,etc.)

f. Publishingaggregatekeydatatrendsonarelevantinstitutionalwebsite,toengagecitizenshipmorewidely (e.g.Indonesia,Kenya)

g. Encouragingdata-sharingwithawiderangeofactors,includingresearchinstitutionsanduniversities


Inothercasesthefulldatasetfromthesocialregistryissharedwithuserprogrammes,meaningthesocialregistryonlyintegratesintake/registration,noteligibilitydetermination.

However,therisksanintegratedapproachtointake/registrationand/ordeterminingeligibilityposesgobeyondthosefacedbyindividualsocialprotectionprograms,asanymistakecanleadtoexclusionfrommultiplesocialsectorschemes.

Forexample,integratedintake/registrationcouldleadtosystematicexclusionofcertainhouseholdsbecauseofproblemswith:

• datacollection:e.g.lowtake-upforon-demandsystems,biasedcoverageforcensussurveysystems,politicalinterference at local level

• data/administrativerequirements:e.g.lackofanIDcard

Anintegratedprocessfordeterminingeligibilitycouldsimilarlybeproblematiciftheeligibilityformuladoesnotaccuratelycapturethoseinneedorifthenationalapproachtodeterminingeligibilitydoesnotadequatelyreflectlocalpovertyprofiles–abigchallengeinlargeanddiversecountries(e.g.Indonesia,Brazil).

Approachesusedtomitigatetheseriskshaveincluded(OPM2015):

a. institutionalisingavalidationprocesswithincommunities,atregistration.Howeverthisistime-consumingandcanbe counterproductiveifvalidationresultsarenotintegratedintothesystem

b.enablingtwodecision-makinglayers.InTurkey,forexample,datadetermineseligibilitybuthumandecision(following householdvisit)prevails.Centrallevelthenvalidateslocaldecisions,performingspot-checksondiscrepancieswiththe centraltargetingindex

c. havinginplaceafunctionalgrievancemechanismforcomplaintsandappeals,e.g.atoll-freeline(problematicifthisdoes nottranslateintochangesintargetingdecisions)

d. ensuring,throughtailoredcommunicationstrategies,thatpeopleunderstandtargeting(e.g.toincreasetake-upand registration).

e. includingparametersrelatingtolocalcontext(urban/rural,servicesavailableetc.),asisdonebySISBENinColombia.

4.6.3 Integrated management of selected operations and services

Oneoftheultimateaimsof integrationofdataandinformationmanagementshouldbetoimprovecitizen’sexperienceandaccess tosocialprotectionprogrammes.However, integratingoperationsandservicesacross thesocialprotectionspectrumrequiresveryhighlevelsofcapacityandinstitutionalcoordination–andmaynotalwaysbefeasible.Forexample, individualprogramsmaybereluctanttorelinquishcontrolovertheiroperations. Inthissectionwebrieflydiscussthekeyoperations–beyonddeterminationofeligibility–thatcouldusefullybeintegratedandmanagednationally.SeealsoModulesS&IandAdmin

• Communications-Adoptinganintegratedapproachtosocialprotectionentailsprovidingclear,transparentand non-contradictoryinformationtocitizensontheirrightsandresponsibilitiesinrelationtotheservicestheymayormaynot beentitledto.AnIntegratedSystemforInformationManagementcouldpotentiallyaidthisprocessbyrationalizingaccess toandreceiptofsocialprograms:ensuringonepointofcontactandsourceofinformation.

• Registration–Integratingtheapproachtoregisteringpotentialbeneficiariesofsocialprotectionprograms–asisthecase forSocialRegistrieswithongoingon-demandregistration–canhavelargeimpactsoncitizens(ensuringeaseofaccess, applicantscanapplyforseveralprogrammesatonce,lessdocumentsneeded,better/coordinatedinformationon entitlements,etc.)ThisisinlinewithbestpracticeadvocatedbytheILOindevelopingSingleWindowServices.Seealso comments above.

• Updatingregistrationinformationforon-goingassessmentofeligibility–akeyareawhereintegrationcouldgenerate benefitsfortheadministrationofsocialprotectionprogramsisthepossibilityofcontinuouslyupdatingcitizen’sregistration information.Thiswouldallowthesystemtocontinuouslyre-assesseligibilityforawiderangeofprograms,especially universalcategoricalones.Forexample,bycrosscheckinginformationfromthesocialsecuritysystemandCivilRegistry, thesystemcouldflaghouseholdseligibleforchildbenefits,pensionsorunemploymentinsurance.Thiswouldenablea governmenttoprovideimmediateprotectionwhenneedsarise,butalsoto‘exit’householdswhoarenolongereligible (agecut-offs,death,etc.).CountriesmovinginthisdirectionincludeMauritius,withitstwinnedSingleRegistry,Argentina, ChileandUganda.

• Payments(whererelevant,e.g.cashtransfers)–Integratingpaymentscanbedifficultwhereexistingprogramshave differentpaymentmechanismsandproviders(e.g.banks,postoffices,privateagenciesandmanualmechanismssuchas armedvehicles).However,Brazil,TurkeyandChileshowthatthislevelofintegrationispossiblewhereadequate coordinationisinplaceandtheintegratedMISislinkedtothepaymentserviceprovider.Forexample,inKenyasuch integrationisincreasinglyinplacethankstotheroleofEquityBankandKenyaCommercialBank,andtoa2013presidential directivemandatingthedigitisationofallgovernmentpayments.Forexample,thecountry’s‘SingleRegistry’nowsupports theverificationofthebeneficiarylistthroughpre-payrollandpost-payrollchecks(Mwasiaji,2016).

• M&Esystems–seeSection4.6.1

• Grievancemechanisms–therecouldbeeconomiesofscopeandscale,andbenefitsintermsoftransparencyandeaseof access,integratingtheoverarchinggrievanceprocedure(e.g.settingupanationalhotlinethatredirectsprogramme specificqueries,whilealsousingahighlytrainednetworkofstaffatlocallevelasfirstpointsofaccess).Severalcountries aremovinginthisdirection(e.g.Indonesia,Kenya),butnotenoughevidenceisavailabletodate.INSouthAfrica,the experienceoftheSocialsecuritytribunalwastooperateacultureshiftfrompreviouslydecentralizedsocialassistance toamorerulesbasedeligibilitycriteria–itservedtoinformpeopleabouttheneweligibilityrules–theSOCPENsystem wasinstrumentalinhelpingquicklydetermineeligibilityandinformaboutparticipantswhytheydidnotqualifyetc.butthis supposesrulesaretransparentandcomprehensible.

• CaseManagement–Eachbeneficiaryaccessingasocialprotectionprogrammecomeswithaparticularhistoryandsetof needs,whicharenot,necessarilyalladdressedthroughstandardprogrammeoperations.AnintegratedSocialProtection CaseManagementSystemwouldfolloweachindividual‘case’,ensuringthatpeople’sneeds(children,disabledpeople,the elderly,vulnerablehouseholds,etc.)areassessedonacontinuousbasisandaddressed:a)withinexistingprogrammes (e.g.providingguidance,information,support),andb)bylinkingbeneficiariestoawidersetofcomplementaryservices availablewithinthecountry(throughsomeformofaReferralSystem).

• Conditionalities–Intheory,fullintegrationcouldmakeitmoreefficienttomonitorconditionality.Forexample,connecting theEducationMinistryMIStotheIntegratedMIScouldprovidetimelydataonattendance.Thisisahighlycomplexprocess fromaninstitutionalanddatamanagementpointofview,whichiswhyonlyTurkeyhassucceededinmakingthisprocess entirelyvirtual–standardpracticeistoadoptbatch-sendingprocesses.

AgreatexampleofalegacysystembeingusedtomanageawidevarietyofgrantsthroughanintegratedsystemfordataandinformationmanagementisSouthAfrica(seeBox9).



Box 9: SOCPEN, South Africa’s legacy system

Source: Barca and Chirchir (2014).

TheRepublicofSouthAfrica’sDepartmentofSocialDevelopment(establishedin1929),togetherwiththeSouthAfricaSocialSecurityAgency(SASSA),runsacomprehensivesystemofsocialassistancegrantsandprocesses16,991,634grantsmonthly14 (collectedbyjustover11millionrecipients).ThegrantsareprocessedusingalegacysystemcalledSOCPEN,whichstartedinthe1930s.SOCPENrunsonanon-graphicaluserinterfacebasedonmainframeslocatedattheStateInformationTechnologyAgency(SITA).Itslegacyenterprisedatabase,Adabas,managesmorethan2300concurrentusersandhasaregisterofmorethan16millionbeneficiaries,withprimarydatacollectedthroughanon-demandapplicationsystem.Sincesocialsecurityimplementationishandledbyoneagency,itcanbearguedthatSouthAfricaoperatesa‘singlewindow’ for processing applicants.

Toperformitskeyfunctions–processingapplicationsforthecountry’ssixsocialgrants,determiningbeneficiariesfromthelistofapplicants,maintainingthepayrollforthegrants,15andautomaticallyproducingalistofbeneficiariestobere-assessed–SOCPENlinkstoafile-trackingsystemprovidingreal-timeinformationonthestatusofsocialgrantapplicationsandtoLivelink,adocumentmanagementsystemthatscansandmanagesrecordsofgrantrecipients.

SOCPENinterfaceswithothergovernmentMISs,themostimportantofwhichisthatoftheDepartmentofHomeAffairs,and can provide real-time information from the population register (e.g. deaths). An online interface has also beenestablishedwithPERSAL(governmentpayrollsystem)tocrosscheckincomedata.Otheradhocdatasources(notlinkedonline)includetheUnemploymentInsuranceFund;GovernmentEmployeesPensionFund;payrollsystemoftheDefenceForce;NationalTreasury (toverifybeneficiarybankingdetails);DepartmentofBasicEducation learnerdatabase;andspecialinvestigationsunit(toidentifyfraudulentgrants).

• Whileprovingthatlegacysystemscanbeveryeffective,thesystemhaslimits:

• reachingitsabilitytobecustomisedandbeingovertakenbymanytechnologicalchanges

• producing substantial volumes of paperwork

• notbeinganorganisation-widesystemcoveringallSASSAoperations,leadingtoduplicationofdatastoring andmakingM&Emoredifficult

• linkingwithotherMISsbutnotalwaysinrealtime

• focusingonmanagingoperationalprocessesforgrantdeliveryratherthanonpolicycoordinationandoversight.

• Moreover,approachestofurtherintegrateSOCPENandmovetowardsanationalintegratedsocialinformation system(NISIS)havefailedtodate.16

14 Source: interviews with Caesar Vundule and Carin Koster. The current estimate of South Africa’s population is 54 million.biometric systems ae in place for benefi-ciaries to collect their money and prove their identity, including fingerprints and voicerecognition. 16 SASSA’s plans to migrate to a graphical user interface have run in parallel with plans to integrate the social information needed by higher levels of government. This need originally came from the national War on Poverty Campaign launched in 2007 by the Office of the President after a 10-year review of anti-poverty ser-vices offered since Independence. The rationale for creating a new NISIS was to develop cross-ministry anti-poverty strategies and gather information on the con-ditions of the poor. SASSA’s on-demand system was insufficient for this since it does not have a complete profile of the poor. A feasibility study and proof-of-con-ceptfor NISIS werecompleted in 2009, financed directly by the Treasury. Since then, as with most large conceptual ideas, NISIS’s development has been a journey. In 2009, a formal partnership was established between the War on Poverty Campaign and the Department of RuralDevelopment and Land Reform. The department took ownership of the project and has enabled the ongoing development of NISIS in support of its Comprehensive Rural Development Programme, which focused on household profiling and service referral capabilities. The Department of Social Development was to lead overall coordination but it never did so, partly because NISIS had no institutional and legal framework and no structure. SASSA has been almost cut out, such that SOCPEN data has never been fed into the NISISdatabase. Similarly, the Treasury has not supported the project due to ‘general scepticism over large scale IT projects’ (Da Silva, 2012).

Table 2: Key enablers for the development of an Integrated System for Information Management

DIMENSION WHEN IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION FEASIBLE? KEY ISSUES

Policy environment and budget

• Nationalpolicyfocusedondevelopingasystemsapproachtosocialprotection(aimingto achievecoordinationandharmonisationtofillcoveragegapsandaddressthefragmentation thatlimitstheeffectivenessandimpactofsocialprotectionpoliciesandprograms)• Integration of data and information management clearly articulated in National Development Plans,NationalSocialProtectionPoliciesandStrategies,andotherstrategicdocuments• Strongpoliticalleadershipadvocatingforreformandcoordinatinginstitutionalactors• Focusonensuringpoliticalbuy-inandownershipofallactors,includingsocialpartnersand representativesofbeneficiaries,byaddressingadvantagesforeach(e.g.throughsocial dialogue,participatoryplanningprocessandstakeholdermapping)• ExistenceofProgrammeoperationalrulesandguidelines(oftenICTsprompttheneedtoclarify thisprerequisite!)• Sufficientcapacitytoidentifyandcostpolicyoptions,assessaffordabilityandidentify availablefinancingoptions• Budgetavailability(andpolicysupport)tobackthevision• Acceptanceofslow,iterativeprocessandfailures

Staff availability and capacity

• Highlytrainedandqualifiedstaff,motivatedthroughaperformancemanagementsystem,andat asufficientlyhighsalarytoguaranteeretention–bothatcentralandlocallevel• Sufficientbudgetforcontinuousstafftrainingandretention• Cultureofsharingandproblemsolving,e.g.noresistanceandcomplacencyofstafftowantto keepthesystemasitis• Presenceof‘hybrid’staffthatunderstandbothcontext,organization,andworkprocessesoftheir sectorandtheroleofinformationsystem

Governanceand institutional structure

• Existenceoreasycreationofanindependentunitthatisinchargeofmanagingandmaintaining thenewsystematasufficientlyhighgovernmentleveltoeffectivelycoordinatewithall stakeholdersandupdatenewregulationsetc..• RoleoftheIntegratedSystemforInformationManagementanditsmanagingunitembeddedin legislation(exampleBrazil)• Potentialforstronginstitutionaltieswithothergovernmentbodies• Absenceofparallelorcompetingstructuresforoversightofsocialprotectionpolicy (nopowerstruggles);levelsofagreementonbasicissuesregardingpaymentsystems/contract andcompensationofadministrationcostsbetweenagencies,etc.• Stakeholdersclearlyidentifiedandtheirrolesformalisedthroughlegallybindingagreements, carefully designed incentives and mutually agreed terms of reference• Decentralisationapproachedasaresourceratherthanimpediment:providingaddedvalueto decentralisedgovernment(tailoredfunctionalityanddatasharing),involvinglocalgovernment and creating performance incentives


4.7 COUNTRY CONTEXT: INTEGRATING HOW?

Beyondpolicyobjectives,it isclearthatcertainset-upsforintegrationwillonlybeachievableincertaincontexts:acountry’shistoricaltrajectoryandultimate‘endowment’hasagreatweightindeterminingchoices.Wediscusskeyenablersbelow(notingthatrecommendationinSection3.3alsoapplyandthatthekeyquestionsforaneedsandfeasibilityassessmentareset-outinSection5.2).


DIMENSION WHEN IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION FEASIBLE? KEY ISSUES

Widercountrycontext

Hardware (for example, computers and server)• Adequatehardwareavailableatlocallevels(thesecanbepurchased,butthisincreasescosts significantly).• Adequateservers—high-capacitycomputers—thatcanbearescaleduptoaccommodate potentialgrowth(forexample,adesignatedserverroomwithreasonablephysicalandlogical securitythatconformstoISO27001).• Stable provision of electricity at local level

Application software and database• (Ifneeded)potentialtocreatealargedatabasethatisscalable,flexibleandperformswell.• Clarityoffunctionalrequirementsandtechnicalspecificationsatpolicylevel.Keyquestions- suchaspurpose,benefits,hostingandnatureofusers—shouldbeaddressedatthefeasibility stageandagreedbyallstakeholders.• Availabilityofcapacitytosupportandadministertherelevantsoftware,databaseandnetwork

Transfer of data• Adequatelegislationandproceduresensuringdataprivacyandsecurity• ExistenceofasolidsystemforauniqueIDforsocialprotection(NationalIDorsocialsecurity number)thatcanbeusedasabackbonetointegratedataacrosssources• Ideally,Internetaccessatalllevelsofimplementation,includinglocal(tobuildweb-service accessthatgreatlyimprovesinformationflow).-preferableuseofgovernmentinternalnetwork andhosting• Clearlydocumentedprotocolsenablingqualitycontrolsoninformationbeforeitissubmitted overtheInternetortransferredbybatchprocess

Source: Barca, 2017

Itshouldbenotedthatthelackofanyoftheseconditionsdoesnotmeanintegrationisnotpossible–itsimplyimpliesincreasingtimeandefforttodevelopafunctioningsystem.Wefocusontwokey‘buildingblocks’below:a)lackofNationalIDnumberandb)lackofappropriatesafeguardstoensuredataprivacyandsecurity.

4.7.1 Lackofnationaluniquenumberidentifier(e.g.ID)

Whenattemptingtointegrateprogramsacrossandoutsidethesocialprotectionsector,auniqueIDnumberforindividualsisneededtolinkRegistryinformationwithothersystemsandprograms.Themosteasyandeffectivesolutionforthis–thoughnotfreeofcontroversy(seeTable3)–istheuseofacountry’sNationalIDnumber.

Table 3: The opportunities and challenges of linking a National ID number to Social Protection provision

OPPORTUNITIES CHALLENGES AND RISKS

• Enables instant integration of different programs and sectorialdatabases(actsasuniqueidentifier), potentially improving service delivery

• Canprovideonline,cost-effective,ubiquitous authenticationservicesacrossacountry:e.g.fordata verification(ensuringuniqueness–1:n–and identity–1:1)

• Canactasadata-source,withinformationonall citizens(e.g.,names,addresses,etc.),thushelpingto identify vulnerable groups or persons

• Facilitatesanaudittraildowntotherecipientofsocial assistancethusincreasingtransparencyand accountabilitywhilereducingprogramleakagesand fraud

• Cancomplementfinancialinclusioninitiativesand enableaccesstoandreducethecostsoffinancial services:e.g.enablese-paymentstobeneficiaries (fulfilsKnowYourCustomerRequirements)

• Cansupportintegrationofpaymentsystemsand otherservicesacrossprogrammes

• Fewlowerandmiddleincomecountrieshave100% populationcoveragewithintheirCivilRegistry

• Themostvulnerableanddisadvantagedindividuals areoftenthosewithoutanationalIDbecauseoflack ofinformationanddirect(e.g.fees),indirect(e.g. transport)andopportunitycosts(time).

• Certaincategoriesofpopulationcouldbe systematicallyexcludedfromtheNationalID andthereforeSocialProtectionprovision: mostimportantlynon-citizens,migrants,indigenous peopleandminors(e.g.streetchildren)

• Riskyincontextswithnolegalframeworkforprivacy andwheregovernanceispoor–privacyconcerns, whileperhapsnotmanifestedinitially,will likely increase over time17

• IDprojectscanhavelargeinitialcapitalcosts,not justifiedbyneedsintermsofSocialProtection provision

• Wherebiometricsinvolved,needsad-hocapproach forcategoriesthatcannotbeeasilyregistered (e.g.fingerprintsforveryyoungandveryold)

Source: Adapted by Barca, 2017 from Gelb and Clark 2012. Note that many of the ‘opportunities’ could also be guaranteed by other robust ID systems.

Manycountries,however,donothaveaNationalIDnumberorhaveinsufficientcoverageofthepoorestandmostvulnerablepopulationgroups.SohowtoensurelinkageofdatabasesinthelackofanexistingIDsystemanduniqueidentifier?Countryexperiencesuggeststhefollowingavenues(Barca,2017;CastanedaandLindert2005;GelbandClark2012;Gelb2014):

• BuildingabusinesscaseforaNationalIDSystemasanimportantpillarfordeliveryofsocialservices,workingalongside nationalregistryofficesonacommonefforttoregisterindividualsparticularlyinremoteorpoorareaswherelackofidentity documentationandnumbersisprevalent.Forexample,thiscouldinclude:

1. AssessingtheeffectivenessofaNationalIDsystem,evaluatingprosandcons(seeforexampleTable3andinvestingin a feasibility study as part of data and information integration planning18. Estimates on costs of large ID programs run from$3to$15perhead19;

17 It should be noted in this context that several high income countries, most recently France, have not allowed for integration across their Civil Registry and Social Protection system because of privacy concerns.18 Such a study would clarify objectives, benefits, costs, contextual constraints and set forth a clear road map.19 See “Unique ID in Development and Social Programs” PPT (Gelb, 2014) for more details.



2. Incorporatingcivilregistrationasakeyobjectiveofasocialprotectionprogram.ExamplesincludeKenya’sCashTransfer forOrphansandVulnerableChildrencashtransfer,Kenya’sHungerSafetyNetProgramandUganda’sSocialAssistance GrantsforEmpowermentprogram,wherebeneficiaryhouseholdsaregiveneasy/freeaccesstonationalID20;

3. RegisteringhouseholdsforNationalIDduringregistrationfortheSocialRegistry.InLesotho,forexample,thiswasdone duringregistrationfortheChildGrantProgramme.

• IncorporatingsocialprotectionasakeyobjectiveofcivilregistrationandNationalIDefforts.ThisisthecaseinPakistanand India.PartnerwithHomeaffairsfornationalcampaignandextensionofIDregistration

1. Takingadvantageofnationaleventssuchaselectionstoregisterallcitizens.ThishasbeendoneinBangladesh,Benin andDRC,forexample;

2. SharingcostsofsettingupanIDsystemamonggovernmentagenciestojustifyinvestment;

3. LinkingtheIDtootherdesirableservices.ForexampleaspartoftherolloutofcomprehensiveIDsystemcalled “Adhaar”21,India’sgovernmentisopeningbankaccounts.InPakistan,NADRAachievedregistrationbypromotingwide rangeofwiderbenefits(abilitytoperformhajpilgrimage,accesstobankaccountsandotherservices).

• ConsideringtherelativeeffectivenessofotherexistingfunctionalIDsystemse.g.VoterRegistration,BirthRegistration,etc.

• Generatinganotherfunctional‘uniquenumber’tosubstituteanationalIDnumberandcomplementexistingfunctionalIDs. ThemostfamousistheUS’sSocialSecurityNumber,astrategyadoptedinBrazil22,Mauritius,andMexico,forexample. However,thecommonpracticeofassigningnewnumbersaspeopleapply(newnumberforeachquestionnaire)couldlead wetopotentialproblemswithduplication,asinColombia.

• Designingformulaeor“algorithms”thatcombineanumberofvariablestocreateacomparableidentifieracrossdatabases inthegovernmentsector.Forexample,Brazil’s“matchkey”variablesconsistofname,mother’sname,birthandcodesfrom selected documents23,whileinthePhilippinesprobabilitymodelsformatchingdataarebasedonbirthdatesandother identifyingdata;

• RejectingthosewhodonothaveanIDnumber,asBrazildid,forexample,intheearlyphasesoftheCadastroÚnico. However,thisisnotaviablestrategyforaninclusiveRegistry.

4.7.2 Lack of appropriate safeguards to ensure data security and privacy

Eligibilityintosocialprotectionprogrammesrequiressubstantialamountsofpersonalinformationtobegatheredfrompotentialbeneficiaries, includingsensitivedataonhealth, income,assets,andhousing.Thisposes the riskofmisusingor losingsuchinformation,24 potentially exposing households to further vulnerability (CALP 2013; Hosein and Nyst 2013; APSP 2015). Inintegratedsystems,thisriskincreases,especiallyasdataissharedacrossmultipleactors.Importantly,therighttoinformationprivacyisalsoembeddedintheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(UDHR),theInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights=andtheILOSocialProtectionFloorsRecommendation,2012(No.202),whichexplicitlycallsonStatesto“establishalegalframeworktosecureandprotectprivateindividualinformationintheirsocialsecuritydatasystems”(para,23)26.

Bestpractice shows that–whereSocialRegistriesorany levelof Interoperability isbeingdeveloped–country lawsshouldadheretointernationaldatatransferandinformationprivacyprotocols,whichlegislatethecollection,transferandstorageofinformation.Thisbecomesevenmoreimportantwheredataissharedacrossapublicnetworkandseveralinstitutions.

20A controversial example comes from the Dominican Republic, where a program aiming to register poor citizens de facto stripped citizenship rights from many residents of Haitian extraction – see here.21See here.22See for example Brazil’s ‘Social identification number’ (unique number for each registered person).23Note that cross checks across databases using these algorythms as a Unique ID are not 100% accurate.24For example, data could be illicitly used for blackmail, identity theft, or marketing purposes.25Article 17 of the ICCPR, which reinforces Article 12 of the UDHR, provides that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation”26States that are party to other United Nations or regional instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, or the African Union Principles on Freedom of Expression should also take into account their international obligations in the implementation of the national social protection floors.

Key lawsthatshouldbeadheredto include:CouncilofEurope’sConvention for theProtectionof IndividualswithregardtoAutomaticProcessingofPersonalData;UnitedNationsGuidelinesfortheRegulationofComputerizedPersonalDataFiles;andOECDGuidelinesontheProtectionofPrivacyandTransborderFlowsofPersonalData.Suchpracticeiscommon,forexample,in all Latin American countries.

Inparticular, someof themost importantprinciplesandactions for thesecureuseofpersonaldatawithinsocialprotectionprogrammesaresummarisedbelow(CALP,2013;Barca,2017):

1. ensureinformedconsentofthosewhoaresharingtheirdata,explainingthenatureofthedatabeingcollected,the purposeofcollection,withwhomitwillbeshared,andwhoisresponsibleforthesecureuseoftheirdata;27

2. establishamechanismtorespondtoanycomplaintsorconcernscitizensmayhaveabouttheuseoftheirpersonaldata;

3. regularlyundergoinformationsystemauditstoanalyse,documentandunderstandtheflowofdataanddeveloprisk mitigationstrategiesforpotentialrisksarisingfromtheseflows;

4. implementappropriatetechnicalandoperationalsecuritystandardsforeachstageofthecollection,useandtransfer ofbeneficiarydatatopreventunauthorisedaccess,disclosureorloss;

5. implementappropriatemechanismstoprovideindividualswiththerighttoaccesstheirpersonaldataandcorrectit

6. enforcedataback-upandprotectionprotocolsandguidelines,forexampleby:

• ensuringdatausersaretrainedandawareoftheseissues,

• implementinguserprofilesoninformationsystemaccess,allowingforanaudittrail

• sharingdatainanonymisedandsummaryformatexceptwhenneeded

• establishingnon-disclosureagreementsforanyonewhoisgrantedaccesstodata;

Specifically,backupandsecurityshouldconformtoISO2700128—anapproachtomanagingconfidentialorsensitiveinformation—soitremainssecure,confidentialandwithitsintegrityintact.Insomepilottransferprograms(forexample,theHungerSafetyNetProgrammeKenyaandSocialAssistanceGrantsforEmpowermentinUganda)backupandsecuritysystemsarehostedinphysicallyandlogicallysecuredserversatprogramlevel.Butnationalprogramssometimesoutsourcethissecurityandhostingfunction.InPakistan,forexample,theBenazirIncomeSupportProgrammedatabaseishostedbytheNationalDatabaseandRegistrationAuthority.InSouthAfrica,SOCPENishostedbytheSouthAfricanStateInformationTechnologyAgency(SITA).

Atrade-offemergeswhentheneedfordataprivacyconflictswithtransparencyandaccountability.Severalcountrieshavesolvedthisbymakingcertainaggregateandanonymiseddatasetsanddatavisualisationsavailabletothegeneralpublic.InIndonesia,forexample,16ofthe40coreindicatorsintheSocialRegistryareavailableonlineinaggregateformat.

4.8 COUNTRY EXPERIENCES TO DATE

Supportforintegrateddataandinformationmanagementforsocialprotectionhasgrownconsiderablyinthelast20yearsespecially.Theearlywavegoesbacktothelate70sandearly80s,whenChileandSouthAfricawerestartingtosetuptheirsystems(seeBox9forSouthAfrica’slegacysystem).BasedondataintheWorldBank’sStateofSocialSafetyNets2015(Honorati,GentiliniandYemtsov,2015)andonourupdatedassessment,integrateddataandinformationmanagementforsocialprotectionisalreadyfullyinstitutionalisedin30low-andmiddle-incomecountriesworldwide(15inLatinAmerica,sixinAfrica,fiveinEuropeandtheMiddleEastandfourintheAsia-Pacific).29Manyofthesesystemsaresetupassocialregistries.Currentlythenumberofcountriesconsideringanddevelopingoptionsforintegrationinthissectorisexpandingrapidly,withanadditional31countries–18ofwhichareinSub-SaharanAfrica–intheprocessofdevelopinganintegratedsystemforinformationmanagement(seeTable4overleaf).

27 Recent research in Kenya showed that this was often not the case (APSP 2015). 28SO/IEC 27001:2013 is an information security standard that was published in September 2013. It is published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Organizations which meet the standard may be certified compliant by an independ-ent and accredited certification body on successful completion of a formal compliance audit.29The World Bank’s full list includes 21 countries. We have added further ones based on an updated assessment.



Table 4: List of countries, which have developed or are developing integrated systems for information management in the social protection sector

LatinAmerica

• Argentina,SingleDatabaseforSocialSecurity(BUSS)• Belize,SingleIdentificationSystemofBeneficiaries(SISB)• Bolivia,BeneficiaryRegistryofSocialPrograms• Brazil,CadastroÚnico• Chile,SocialRegistryofHouseholds(RSH)• Colombia,IntegratedInformationSystemofSocialProtection(SISPRO)• CostaRica,SistemadeIdentificacióndelaPoblaciónObjectivo(SIPO)• DominicanRepublic,SistemaÚnicodeBeneficiaros(SIUBEN)• Ecuador,SocialRegistryandRegistryofSocialPrograms(RIPS)• Guatemala,RegistroÚnicodeUsuariosNacional(RUU-N)• Honduras,UniqueRegistryofParticipants(RUP)• Jamaica,BeneficiaryManagementInformationSystem• Mexico,CuestionarioÚnicodeInformaciónSocioeconómica• Panama,UnifiedRegistryofBeneficiaries(RUB)• Uruguay,IntegratedInformationSystemfortheSocialArea(SIIAS

Africa • CaboVerde,UniqueRegistry• Kenya,SingleRegistry• Lesotho,NationalInformationSystemforSocialAssistance(NISSA)• Mauritius,SocialRegisterofMauritius(SRM)• Seychelles,IMIS• SouthAfrica,SOCPEN

Europe andMiddle East

• Armenia,FamilyBenefitSystem*• Azerbaijan,MinistryofLaborandSocialProtectionofPopulationMIS(MLSPP)• Macedonia,CashBenefitsManagementInformationSystem(CBM)• Romania,IntegratedInformationSystemforAdministrationofSocialBenefits• Turkey,SocialAssistanceInformationSystem(SAIS)

Asia-Pacific

• Indonesia,BasisDataTerpadu(orUnifiedDatabaseforSocialProtection(PPLS))• Pakistan,NationalSocioEconomicRegistry• Malaysia,eKasih• Philippines,Listahanan(orNationalHouseholdTargetingSystemforPoverty Reduction,NHTS-PRNSER)

LatinAmerica

• Dominica,NationalBeneficiaryInformationSystem(NBIS)• ElSalvador,SingleRegistryofBeneficiaries(RUP)• Nicaragua,UniqueRegistryofParticipants(RUP)• Paraguay,SingleRegistryofBeneficiaries• Peru,NationalRegistryofBeneficiaries• StLucia,CentralBeneficiaryRegistry

Table 4: List of countries, which have developed or are developing integrated systems for information management in the social protection sector continued

Africa • Benin,UniqueRegistry• Djibouti,UniqueRegister• Egypt,UnifiedNationalRegistry• Ethiopia,NationalHouseholdRegistry(socialregistry)andCentralSocialProtection ManagementInformationSystem(integratedbeneficiaryregistry)• Ghana,GhanaNationalHouseholdRegistry(GNHR)• Liberia(nameunknown)• Malawi,UnifiedBeneficiaryRegistry• Mali,SocialRegistry• Mauritania,NationalSocialRegistry• Morocco,UnifiedRegister• Nigeria(nameunknown)• Rwanda,IntegratedManagementInformationSystem• Senegal,UniqueRegistry• Tanzania,TASAFSocialRegistry• Tunisia,UnifiedRegistryandUniqueIdentificationSystem• Uganda(nameunknown)• Zambia,SingleRegistryofBeneficiaries• Zimbabwe,Integratedsystemsthatarebeingdeveloped

Europe andMiddle

• Georgia,SystemofSocialAssistance• Jordan,NationalUnifiedRegistry• Lebanon,NationalPovertyTargetingProgram

Asia-Pacific

• Bangladesh,BangladeshPovertyDatabase• Cambodia,IDPoor• Mongolia,IntersectoralDatabaseofPoorHouseholdsandRegistryofBeneficiaries• Tajikistan,NationalRegistryofSocialProtection

Source: Honorati, Gentilini and Yemtsov (2015) and authors’ integrations.

Theseintegratedsystemsrangegreatlyintheirset-up,functionsandlevelsofcross-sectoralintegration.Thisisexemplifiedbythenumberofsocialprotectionprogramstheyserve,whichrangesfromtwo(CaboVerde)toover80(Chile),asshowninfigure5below,andbythenumberofwebservicelinkstheyestablishwithothergovernmentdatabases,whichrangesfromzeroto43(Chile).Ofcourse,theyalsodifferintheirapproachtointegration–manyareoperationalisedassocialregistries,othersasintegratedbeneficiaryregistriesandothersasvirtualsocialregistries30.

30The amount of information available on each country’s experience was not sufficient to classify these explicitly.



Figure 5: Number of programs served, selected registries

Source: Honorati, Gentilini and Yemtsov (2015) and authors’ updates (online survey and recent literature).

Moreover,whethercalculatedasnumbersof individualsorhouseholdsorasapercentageofpopulation,thesizeofexistingintegratedsystemsforinformationmanagement(i.e.thetotalnumberofhouseholdsandindividualstheyhavedataon)variesgreatlyfromcountrytocountry,dependingonavarietyoffactors.

AsexemplifiedinFigure6thehighestpopulation‘coverage’(percentageofpopulationregistered)isreachedbysystemsthatguaranteefullinteroperability.Forexample,inUruguaytheuseofdatafromexistingadministrativedatabases(usingnationalIDforlinking)meansallcitizensandresidentsareregistered(includingthosewhohavedied,thosewhohavemovedabroadandforeigners living inthecountry).Social registrieswithcensussurveyapproachestodatacollectionthataimtosurveyallhouseholdsinagivencountryfollowclosebehind–asexemplifiedbyPakistanandthePhilippines.Countrieswithon-demanddatacollectionapproaches(e.g.BrazilandSouthAfrica)orcensus-surveysofselectedpopulationgroups(e.g.Indonesia)havemarginallylowercoveragerates–40–50percentofthepopulation.Bydefinition,countrieswithintegratedbeneficiaryregistrieshavethelowestcoverage,asonlybeneficiariesareincludedintheintegratedregistry(e.g.Kenya).DjiboutiandMalaysiafailtohitthe5percentcoveragemarkastheirsystemsarecurrentlybeingexpanded.(Barca,2017)

NUMBEROFPROGRAMSSERVED

0 20 40 60 80 100

Chile

Philippines

Pakistan

Turkey

Romania

Kenya

Mauritius

Lesotho

CaboVerde


Figure 6: Percentage of population covered, selected systems

% POPULATION

Uruguay

Pakistan

Philippines

Colombia

Chile

Turkey

Brazil

Indonesia

SouthAfrica

Kenya

Malaysia

Djibouti

0102030405060708090100

Source: authors’ analysis (online survey and recent literature). Note: Countries and registries included are not necessarily the same asabove, as some report number of households and some report number of individuals.

CostaRica

Bolivia

Indonesia

Panama

Honduras

Brazil

Columbia

Uruguay


Lesssignificantasacomparison(asitisstronglyaffectedbyacountry’spopulationsize),yetinterestingtogiveasenseofthemagnitudeoftheseeffortsisthenumberofhouseholdsregistered(seeFigure7:Numberofhouseholdsregistered,selectedregistries

The largest of all efforts in absolute terms is Pakistan’s National Socio-Economic Registry (linked to BISP), which containsinformationon167millionindividuals,equivalentto27millionhouseholdsor92percentofthepopulation(2015).31 Farbehindintermsofpopulationcoverage(43percent)butverycloseintermsofnumberofhouseholds(almost27million)isBrazil’sCadastroÚnico,followedbyIndonesia’sUnifiedDatabase(25millionhouseholds,40percentofpopulation).

31Interestingly, this is far lower than the number of beneficiaries registered for China’s Dibao program registry of beneficiaries, which comprehends 78 million house-holds (Honorati, Gentilini and Yemtsov 2015) – representing, however, only 6 per cent of China’s population.

Source: Honorati, Gentilini and Yemtsov (2015) and authors’ updates (online survey and recent literature). Note: Mauritius and Lesotho have registered 0.04 million beneficiaries.

32 primarily drawn from Lindert et al (2016)

Figure 7: Number of households registered, selected registries

HOUSEHOLDSREGISTERED(millions)

Pakistan

Brazil

Indonesia

Philippines

Colombia

Turkey

Mexico

Romania

Chile

Honduras

Guatemala

CostaRica

Kenya

Panama

Mauritius

Lesotho

0 5 10 15 20 25 30


Thepercentageofregisteredpeopleorhouseholdsreceivinganyformofsocialassistance(beneficiaries)alsovariesgreatlyfromcountrytocountry–partlydependingontheselectedapproachtointegration.

InKenya,forexample,100percentofindividualsregisteredarealsobeneficiaries(asthisisanintegratedbeneficiaryregistry),InPakistan,thenumberofBISPbeneficiarieswas4.8millionin2015,equivalentto18percentofthehouseholdswithinthenationalregistry.32 In thePhilippines,5.1millionof the total15million registered (33percent)wereclassifiedaspoorand thereforeeligibleforanybenefit.Incountrieswheredatacollectionisprimarilyondemandandbasedoncitizenapplications,itislikelythatthisratioishighestasthehouseholdsmostlikelytoapplyarethosemostinneed(self-targeting).

4.9 TAKE-AWAY LESSONS• IntegrationofinformationanddatawithintheSPsectorcouldpotentiallyyieldseveralpolicyandoperational dividends.Theextenttowhichtheseareachievedinpracticewilldependontheultimateset-upoftheselected IntegratedSystemforInformationManagement.Thischoicewillalsoaffecttheextentofpotentialrisksand tradeoffs–whichneedtobecarefullyevaluatedandcounteracted.

• Potentially,thegreatertheinterconnectivity,thegreaterarethegainsinefficiencyandeffectivenessofservice delivery.Thekeyissueisthereforethelevelofcoordinationandinteroperabilityachieved,notthecreationofa super-sizedsystemordatabasethatservesallpurposes.Itdoesnotmatterwhetherthesystemisset-upasa ‘SocialRegistry’,‘IntegratedBeneficiaryRegistry’or‘VirtualSocialRegistry’-whatmattersisthattheapproach chosenrespondstoacountry’sneeds,isappropriatetoitscontextandisaffordableandsustainable.

• AsystemthatguaranteesfullintegrationwithintheSocialProtectionsectorandbeyond,inaccordancewiththe righttoprivacy,wouldestablishadirect(e.g.webservice)linktoallSocialAssistanceProgrammeMISs;Social InsuranceMISs,andanyotherrelevantGovernmentMISs.

• Integrationismainlyapolicyissuerequiringpoliticalandinstitutionalarrangementsratherthantechnical‘fixes’and differentcountriespursuedifferentpolicyobjectiveswithintegration(affectingtheirdesignchoices):theymaybe choosingtofacilitatethecombinedoversightofprogrammes,theconsolidationoftargeting,and/orthe integration of operations and services.

• Certainset-upsforintegrationwillonlybeachievableincertaincontexts:acountry’shistoricaltrajectoryand ultimate‘endowment’hasagreatweightindeterminingchoices(e.g.existinginfrastructure,capacity,etc.)

393838

1


KEY STEPS WHEN SETTING UP A PROGRAMME MIS OR AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT5.1 OBJECTIVES

Havingcompletedthissection,theparticipantwillhaveanunderstandingof:

• ThemainstepsinvolvedinsettingupanMISorIntegratedSystemforInformation Management• TheimportanceofaNeedsAssessmentandaFeasibilityStudyandwhatquestionsthese shouldbeasking• Severalconsiderations,includingpotentialrisks,duringdesignandimplementation

SettingupaprogrammeMIS is a challengingundertaking,which is compoundedby a lackofstandardsandguidelines.Consequently,manycountries,especially insub-SaharanAfrica,havebeenexperimentingwithanumberofpilotprogrammesthatimplementprogrammeMIS.Unfortunately,someoftheseexperimentshavebeencostly.Forexample,somecountrieshaveprocuredMISsoftwarewithoutaccompanyingsourcecodes,whileothershavebeenforcedtopayexpensivelicensesininstanceswheresourcecodeswerenotsuppliedalongsideotherMISdeliverables.Inothercases,vendorshaveoversoldexpensivecustomizedMISsolutionswherestandard off the shelve productswould havebeen sufficient for the needs of theparticularprogramme. Very often, the underlying problem has been lack of sufficient capacity of thecommissioning body.

TheseriskareevenlargerforIntegratedSystemsforInformationManagement–whichrequiresignificantlevelsofpolicycoordinationtofulfiltheirobjectivesatfull.Ofcoursethesechallengesarenotinsurmountable.Infact,withbetterunderstandingofthekeyfactorsandrisks,improvedsystemscanbesetuptobestaddresstheneedsofSPschemesandsystems.

Broadlyspeaking,wefocusonthreekeysteps:(i)conductinganeedsassessmentandagreeingon broad design parameters; (ii) conducting a feasibility study; and (iii) developing andimplementingtheselectedsolution.

KEY STEPS WHEN SETTING UP A PROGRAMME MIS OR AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5.2 NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND AGREEMENT ON BROAD DESIGN PARAMETERS

Design choices need to be defined through evidence, carefully analysing gaps in service provision and separating desirefromneed.Inordertoachievethis,broadconsensusneedstobebuiltamongallkeystakeholders.Thiscanbeonthebasisofacomprehensiveneedsassessmentandon-goingparticipatorypanning,with theobjectiveofagreeingonbroaddesignparameters. Using the creation of an Integrated System for InformationManagement as an example (this can be broadlyapplicabletoprogrammeMIStoo),thiswillinclude:

• TakingstockofthebroaderSocialProtectionandE-Governmentcontext,todefineobjectivesandunderstand opportunities and constraints

• Takingstockofexistingprogrammesandtheirpotentialforintegration,includingthequalityofexistingprogramme businessprocessesandwhether/howtoredesign/integratethese;

• Understandingspecificinformationrequirementsfordifferentlevelsofusers(primary,secondaryandtertiary),including policymakersfromothersectors

Table 5: Needs assessment – example of questions that could be asked to inform design

COMPONENT EXAMPLEQUESTIONS(UNDERLYINGQUESTIONFOREACH:HOWDOESTHISAFFECTDESIGNCHOICES?)

Broad Social Protection context33

(policy&legislation)

• WhatistheNationalSPpolicy?Priorities?Doesthisreflectplansforintegration?How?Whatare thepolicyprioritiesintermsofintegration(seeSection4.5)?• (Stakeholdermapping)Whoisinchargeofdeliveringsocialassistanceandsocialsecurity incountry,atbothcentralanddecentralisedlevel(primaryusers)?Whatotherstakeholdersare involved(secondaryusers)?Whichfurtheractorsmayhaveastake(tertiaryusers)?Whatare theseactors’interests?Whataretheir(informationandmanagement)needsthatintegrationcan helpaddress?Whatresistancecouldbeencountered?• WhatarethelegislativefoundationsforSocialProtectionandforintegration? Whatarethegaps?

• WhatisthecurrentdegreeoffragmentationorintegrationwithinSocialAssistanceand betweenSocialAssistanceandSocialInsurance?Whataretheexistingmechanismsfor horizontalandverticalcoordination?• Whatisthelevelofdecentralization?Whatcapacityisthereatlocallevel?

33primarily drawn from Lindert et al (2016)

15


COMPONENT EXAMPLEQUESTIONS(UNDERLYINGQUESTIONFOREACH:HOWDOESTHISAFFECTDESIGNCHOICES?)

Broad e-governance context34

• Doesabroadere-governanceplatformexist?Status?Institutionalarrangements?Isthere agovernmentframeworkforICTandinter-operability?WhatisthemaingovernmentICT infrastructure?• Whataretheexistinglegalandregulatoryprovisionsforinformationaccess,cyber-security,data security,dataconfidentiality,privacystandards,personaldataprotection,etc.?Arethese sufficient?• Whatothergovernmentinformationsystemscouldusefullysharedata(dependingon objectives)?E.g.NationalID,CivilRegistry,employmentandlabour,taxsystem,socialsecurity, health,education,landtitling,housingandotherproperty,etc.Arelinkswitheachdesirable andwhy?• CantheNationalIDbeusedasaUniqueIdentifier?E.g.What%ofpopulationhasNational ID;whatinfoiscollected;characteristicsofthosewithnoID;otherformsofID;mostcommon IDforlow-incomehouseholds;chargesorfeesforID;accessibilityofregistry,etc.?Advantages anddisadvantages?Ifnot,whatalternativesolution?

Existingprogrammes andtheirbusiness processes

• Whatprogramsexistincountry(objectives,budget,implementingagency,targetingcriteria, coverageandplansforscalingup,benefits,keyfeatures,businessprocesses,information managementapproach)?• Whichofthesecanusefullybeintegrated?Alongwhichdimensions(e.g.integrationof registration/datacollection,eligibilitydetermination,orothersystemstoo–payments, grievances,etc.)?• Doprograms’currentbusinessprocessesneedredesigningandintegrating?How?

Information requirements

• Whatarethespecificinformationneedsofallkeyactors(primary,secondaryandtertiary- nationalandlocal,governmentandcivilsociety,implementationandpolicy,etc.)?Whyare theseneedsimportant?Howwillthisinformationbeused?Whatistheorderintermsof priority?• Whatdatawillbeneededtofeedintothecorebusinessprocessessupported?• Hastheamountofdatacollectedbeenlimitedbykeepingdatafocusedoncoreobjectivesand processes

Source: Lindert et al (2016)35, adapted by Barca (2017)

Afeasibilitystudyaimstoobjectivelyandrationallyuncoverthestrengthsandweaknessesoftheproposeddesignbasedonawiderangeofparameters,thatultimatelydefinetheprospectsforsuccess.AgoodfeasibilityreportshouldsetoutaclearroadmaponthedesignandimplementationoftheProgrammeMISorintegratedsolutionfordataandinformationmanagementata strategic level.

Inmanydevelopingcountries,policymakersassumethatprogrammeMISsandintegratedsystemsforinformationmanagementarea‘technicaltool’thatisbestdeliveredbyICTconsultantsorexperts.However,theseshouldbethoughtofholisticallyasbroadsystemsthatenabletheflowofinformationwithinandbeyondSocialProtectionprogrammesandare,therefore,policytools that shouldfindspace innationalSPpolicyagendas.Fortunately, this is increasinglyhappening in severaldevelopingcountries-e.g.Kenya(seeCaseStudyandBox10).

34 primarily drawn from Lindert et al (2016)35 Specifically, elements of this table are adapted from the World Bank’s draft ‘Assessment Tool for Social Registry Information Systems’.



Box 10: Kenya's Single Registry

Kenya’sNational Social Protection Policy (NSPP) clearly defines the nature and scope of the Single Registry and SPMIS.According toNSPP, theSingleRegistry isdesigned to: (i)provide increasedharmonizationandconsolidationoffragmentedschemes;and(ii)enhancetheresponsivenessofsocialprotectioninitiativestoincreaseitscapacitytoquicklyscale-upinresponsetorapid-onsetcrises.TheNSPPalsoveststheresponsibilityforcollectionandmanagementofdataintherespectivestakeholdersimplementingvarioussocialprotectionprogrammes.SeeCaseStudyinSection6.2below.

Source: Barca, 2017

However,notalldevelopingcountrieshaveput inplacesocialprotectionpolicieswithclearagendasonMISor integration.Toavoidpotentialpitfalls,developingcountriesshouldthereforeinvestinfeasibilitystudies.Suchastudywouldaddressthefollowingissues(seeTable6below):

Table 6: Key feasibility parameters and questions

COMPONENT QUESTION

Institutional capacity

• Doesexistinglegislationandpolicyadequatelyreflecttherationaleandmainobjective pursued?Ifnot,istherespaceforshiftingpolicyinthisdirection?How?• Istherestrongenoughpoliticalleadershipadvocatingforreformandcoordinating institutionalactorsacrosstheboard?Ifnot,howcanthisbegarnered?• Whatotherinstitutionswillbacktheprocess?Whowilloppose?Howcaneachbeinfluenced andbroughtonboard?• Istheresufficientcapacitytoidentifyandcostpotentialoptionsforintegration,assess affordabilityandidentifyavailablefinancingoptions.Ifnot,howcouldthistechnicalsupport beachieved?• Istheexistinggovernancestructurestrongenoughtoensureverticalandhorizontal coordinationandleaddevelopmentandmanagementphases?Ifnot,howcouldthisbe strengthened?

Implementation capacity

• WhatcapacityisthereatalllevelsofSocialProtectiongovernancetoimplementsucha project?Whatarethegapsthatneedaddressing(numberandqualificationsofstaff)?• Istherein-houseITcapacitythatcanbeleveraged?Ifso,howwillthisbeused?Ifnot,how willexternalprovidersbemanaged?• Isthereanetworkofstaffatlocallevel(e.g.socialassistants)thatcanbecalledupon?How canthesemosteffectivelybeused?•whatistheircapacityintermsofdatacollection(eitherthroughacensussurveyoron-demand)?• Overall,whataretheproposedrolesandresponsibilitiesofvariousactorsinvolvedinsetting up,managingandusingthesystem?

Infrastructure requirements

• Whatarethehardwarerequirementsoftheproposedmodel?Dotheserespondtocountry constraints(durability,etc.).Arethesealreadyavailableatalllevelsofgovernanceorwillthey needtobeprocured?Ifso,how?Expectedcosts?• Whatarethetelecommunicationsystems/networkrequirements?Dotheserespondto countryconstraints(availabilityofinternet,power,etc.)?Whatback-upoptionsexists?


Financial costs &sustainability

• Whataretheestimatedstart-upcostsoftheproposedmodel(includinghardwareand trainingcosts)?• Whataretheestimatedcostsofoperatingtheproposedmodel(includingstaff requirements)• Isanadequatesourceoffundingguaranteedandsustainableovertime?

Intended users

• Howwillthesystemultimatelybeused? Howcanusebemosteffectivelyenhanced?

Potential positive impacts

• Whataretheexpectedpositiveimpactsoftheproposedsystem? Howcouldthesebestbeachieved?SeelistinSection4.4asanexample.

Potential negative impacts

• Whatarethenegativeimpactsandhowcanthesebemitigated? E.g.privacyandsecurityrisks,excessivecosts,unsustainability,etc.

ConclusionsandRecommendations

• Whatareconclusions?• Whatarekeyrecommendations?

Source: authors

The feasibility studywouldprovideessential guidance as to how to implement theproposedproject effectively –or couldprovidethebasisfordecidingtheoverarchingprojectisunfeasible.

5.3 DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT SELECTED SOLUTION

Asdiscussedextensivelyabove,the‘road-map’setoutbytheFeasibilityStudyshouldprimarilyfocusonhowtheoverarchingstrategyforimplementingtheselectedsolution(e.g.programmeMISorspecificapproachtodevelopinganIntegratedSystemfor InformationManagement)willbeeffectivelypursued.How this canbeachieved inpractice isbeyond the scopeof thisModule,butisdiscussedinModuleCOOandModuleGOV.

Inthissectionwefocusonthe‘ITcomponents’:thedevelopment(andimplementation)oftheMISorIntegratedMISsoftware,thedatabase/registrycreation,thehardwareprocurementandthechoiceoftelecommunicationssystem.

5.3.1 Software development

Therearetwomainoptionsforthis:developtheMISsoftwarein-house(ifthereissufficientcapacity)ortenderingitouttoanexternalprovider.Forexample:

• MozambiqueoptedtodevelopandlocateitsMISattheMinistryofFinancebecauseithadsufficientresourcesto develop,host,andmaintainit;

• Kenyaoutsourcedthedevelopmentofits‘SingleRegistry’(IntegratedBeneficiaryRegistry)andthemodernizationofits cashtransferMIStoanexternalsoftwarefirmthathadlocalpresence(importantbecauseitenablesthesuppliertoprovide ‘handholding’throughoutimplementationandfixanypotentialsoftwareglitcheswithinaminimumguaranteeperiod,e.g. ayear).



Outsourcingisessentialwherecapacityisnotavailablein-house,butrequirescarefulcontractingandmanagement.Forexample,duringthedevelopmentofthesoftware,itisnecessarytosupportthesupplierbyinternallyestablishingtwoteams:

1. Steering:toensurethattheMISisdeliveredwithinscopeandontime.2. Technical:responsibleformonitoringthetasksanddeliverablesoftheproject

Furtherbestpractice(tobeincorporatedinToRsifmanagedexternally)isto:

• Adoptiterativeprototyping,36wherebythesystemisdesignedandusedtoiterativelycustomiseandincorporatefeedback fromusers(onemoduleatatime)

• Useopen-sourcesoftware,acknowledgingthehighcostsofmakingchangestoproprietalsoftware.Foranyother proprietarythirdpartysoftwareused,thesuppliersshouldbeaskedtoprovideperpetualandvalidlicenseforatleasta periodoffiveyearsandensuresoftwareisprocuredwithaccompanyingsourcecodes

• EnsuringtheMISsoftwareincludesallstandarddatacheckssuchasformatmasks,drop-downmenus,datavalue parameters,warningsofrepeatingnames,andcross-referencechecks

• Ensuring‘segregationoffunctions’:pre-definingrolesandprivilegesofeachuseroftheMISsystemsoastoprevent violationsofsecurityandanymisuseoftheMISapplication

• Buildin-housecapacitytodevelopandupdatetheMIS,forexamplebyensuringthatcontractshaveclearprovisionsto allowsupplierstohand-overallthesourcecodeandtechnicaldocumentationofthesystemwithoutanypreconditions.

5.3.2 Database/registry creation

AnMIScanonlyfunctionifitisfedbyadatabase/registrythatcontainsaccurate,up-to-datedata(garbagein-garbageout).Thisrequires:

a. Ensuringastrongapproachtodatacollectionandvalidation(seeModulesX,YandZ)

b. EnsuringcontentsandformatssuchasnamesandidentificationnumbersconformtothosecontainedintheMIS’data dictionary.Thelengthoffieldsandcontentstructureshouldbestandardizedforaggregationandreporting.

5.3.3 Hardware procurement

AsdiscussedinSection3.3,MISsneedtobesupportedbyadequatehardware.Bestpracticeinensuringthisisthecaseincludes:

• ChoosinghardwareresourcesonthebasisoftheapplicationsoftwarerequirementsoftheMIS

• Carefullydefininghardwarespecificationstoensureadequatememory,discspaceandprocessingcapacity;sufficient resiliencetoextremeconditions(highorlowtemperatures,rain,dust,etc.)

• Ensuringavailabilityandappropriatenessforlocallevelsofadministration,consideringcost-effectivetechnology (e.g.useoftablets,smartphones,etc.)

36 Based on the design–divisibility concept, meaning staff can learn from early, relatively small, failures and not be overwhelmed by a single, whole-system design. ‘Where design comes as this single whole, “big bang” implementation, opportunities for local improvisation are reduced and risks of failure correspondingly increase’ (Heeks, 2002).

1


5.3.4 Telecommunicationssystem(data-sharing)set-up

DatacollectedthroughanMIS,whetherprogrammespecificorintegrated,isuselessifitisnotaccessiblebyawidevarietyofactors–andultimatelyused.Bestpracticeinsettingsuchsystemsupinclude:

• Ensuringdataisaccessibleandfunctionalatsub-nationallevelusingthemostcost-effectiveandappropriate telecommunicationtechnologiesavailablein-country,wherepossiblesharingdatathroughweb-serviceaccess(notbatch processes,usingCDsoremail).

• Investing in network infrastructure readiness

• Wherepossible,automatingdatasharingthroughpre-definedformats/templates/applications

• Ensuringadequatemeasuresfordatasecurityandprivacy(seealsoSection4.7.2)

• ClearlydocumentingprotocolsforqualitycontrolsoninformationbeforeitissubmittedovertheInternetortransferredby batchprocess


6CASE STUDIESThefollowingchaptersetsoutthreecountrycasestudies:(i)Zimbabwe,exemplifyingacaseofprogrammeMISthatwasdesignedtoactasaSocialRegistry.Interestingly,theZimbabwecashtransfer design bears close resemblance to neighbouring Zambia’s andMalawi’s social cashtransferschemes. (ii)Kenya,highlightingtheuseofanIntegratedBeneficiaryRegistrysetuptoconsolidateinformationonfivenationalsocialassistanceprogrammes;and(iii)SouthAfrica,illustratingtheroleofanintegratedMISservinganumberofnationalschemes.

6.1 ZIMBABWE’S HARMONISED SOCIAL CASH TRANSFER SCHEME AND ITS MIS

Zimbabwe is currently in the process of putting in place a national social protection policy.However,thathasnotstoppedtheMinistryofLabourandSocialServices(MoLSS),DepartmentofSocialServices(DSS),fromdesigningaflagshipsocialcashtransferprogrammeforlabour-constrainedandextremelypoorhouseholds.ThesocialcashtransferprogrammewasestablishedaspartoftherevisedNationalActionPlanforOrphansandVulnerableChildren(NAPII)2011-2015 as well as of broader DSS social protection programming.

TheChildProtectionFund(CPF)hasthreemainpillars.Thefirstistoreducepovertyexperiencedbyapproximately55,000extremelypoorhouseholds,includingthosewithorphansandothervulnerablechildren,byimplementinganationalcashtransferprogrammeandtherebypositivelybenefitingchildrenandwomen’shealthandwell-being.Thesecondistoenhanceallvulnerablechildren’s access to effective child protection services, including protective services (legal,welfare,judicial)tochildsurvivorsofviolence,exploitationandabuse.ThethirdistofacilitateimprovedaccesstobasiceducationforpoororphansandothervulnerablechildreninYear1.

Tosupporttheharmonizedcashtransfer(HSCT)programme,CPFcontractedthedesignoftheprogramme’smanualofoperationsanditsMIStoanexternalconsultancyfirm.TheprogrammeMISwas designed and developed on the back of a comprehensive review of the capacity,potentialanduseof thesocialcashtransferschemedatabases.Thus, theMISsystematicallyand comprehensively captures the information requirements documented in the manual ofoperationsoftheharmonizedcashtransferprogramme.TheHSCTconductedmassregistration(outsourced toZimbabwe’sBureauofStatistics [ZIMSTATs]) in the targetdistricts inorder tocreateacomprehensiveNAPIIdatabase.Todate,theNAPIIdatabasecontainsinformationon539,057householdsacross24districts.

5.4 TAKE-AWAY LESSONS• SettingupaprogrammeMISisachallengingundertaking,andrisksareevenlargerforIntegratedSystemsfor InformationManagement.Abetterunderstandingofkeyfactorsandriskscanhelptosetupimprovedsystemsto bestaddresstheneedsofSPschemesandsystems.

• Threekeysteps:(i)conductingaNeedsAssessmentandagreeingonbroaddesignparameters;(ii)conductinga FeasibilityStudy;and(iii)developingandimplementingtheselectedsolution.

1. TheNeedsAssessment,accompaniedbyon-goingparticipatorypanning,shouldaimtodefinebroaddesign parametersby:takingstockofthebroaderSocialProtectionandE-Governmentcontext,takingstockofexisting programmesandtheirpotentialforintegration,andunderstandingspecificinformationrequirementsfor different levels of users.

2. TheFeasibilityStudyshouldaimtoobjectivelyuncoverthestrengthsandweaknessesoftheproposeddesign,in ordertoimproveitschancesofsuccess.Itshouldfocusonthefollowingareas:institutionalcapacity, implementationcapacity,infrastructurerequirements,responsivenesstointendedusers’needs,potential positiveandnegativeimpactsandsubsequentrecommendations.

3. Developingandimplementingtheselectedsolutionisprimarilyanissueofcapacity,governanceand coordination.However,bestpracticedoesemergeforthepurely‘ITcomponents’(softwaredevelopment, database/registrycreation,hardwareprocurementandtelecommunicationssystemset-up).


AssetoutinFigure5,theSPprogrammesthatareharmonizedordesignedtolinktotheNAPIIregistryinclude:

• HarmonisedCashTransferProgramme(HSCT):OnthebasisoftheNAPIIregistry,theprogramme’sMISappliestwosetsof selectioncriteria:(i)extremepoverty,meaningthehouseholdmembersarelivingbelowthefoodpovertyline37 and are unabletomeettheirmosturgentbasicneeds;and(ii)ifthehouseholdhasnolabourcapacity,i.e.ithasnoable-bodied householdmemberintheagegroup18to59whoisfitforproductivework.Basedonthedualcriteria,HSCTcurrently benefits55,507householdsin20districts

• BasicEducationAssistanceModule(BEAM):TheBasicEducationAssistanceModule(BEAM)wasconceivedaspartof theEnhancedSocialProtectionProject(ESPP),whichwaslaunchedbytheGovernmentofZimbabweintheyear2000. EventhoughthebeneficiariesofBEAMarenotderivedfromtheNAPIIregistry,theintentionhasalwaysbeenforthe beneficiariesofHSCTtoreceiveBEAMasacomplementary(cashplusservice)benefit.

• AMTOS:thebeneficiariesoftheHSCTareintendedtoreceiveAMTOS,ahealthinsuranceforpoorhouseholdsasa complementarybenefit.

Figure 8: NAP II Registry as envisioned by the child-sensitive social protection framework

CMSDATABASE

AMTOSDATABASE

BEAMDATABASE

WFP’sTRANSFER MIS

AMTOS MIS

CASEMANAGEMENTSYSTEM(Form2s)

HARMONISEDSOCIALCASHTRANSFERNAPIIREGISTRY

TARGETINGSYSTEM(labourconstrained&foodpoor)

Census-basedregistration in 20

districts

BEAM MIS

ZIMSTAT

WFP’sDATABASE

HSCTDATABASE

NAP II CASH PLUS SERVICES

37 A household is food poor when the total household expenditure is below the amount required to meet the minimal food energyrequirements of the household members (2,100 kcal per adult equivalent). As households always have to spend some of their expenditure on non-food items, food poor households suffer from chronic hunger and are unable to meet basic needs.

Source: Authors’ illustration

CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES

6.2 KENYA’S NATIONAL SAFETY NET PROGRAMME AND ITS ‘SINGLE REGISTRY’38

ThiscasestudyfocusesonKenya’srecentlyimplemented‘SingleRegistry’.ThiscanbeclassifiedasanIntegratedBeneficiaryRegistry(seeSection4.2)withaweb-basedreportinginterfacethatprovidesaplatformwherecommonandessentialinformationacrossfivesocialassistanceprogrammesarestored,analysedandreported.Indetail,theSingleRegistryenablesthegovernmentofKenyatolinktogethertheMISsofitsfivemajorsocialprotectionschemes:theOldAgeGrant,DisabilityBenefit,OrphansandVulnerableChildren’sCashTransfer,HungerSafetyNetProgramme,andWorldFoodProgramme’s(WFP)CashforAssetsscheme.

Kenya’sSingleRegistryisverydifferentindesignwhencomparedtoattemptsinothercountriestodevelopSocialRegistries.Kenya’ssystemisessentiallya‘datawarehouse’,holdinginformationonallthebeneficiariesofthenationalsocialprotectionsystem,andiscontinuouslyandautomaticallyupdatedasindividualprogrammeMISsupdatetheirinformationonbeneficiaries.TheSingleRegistry–whichoffersapubliclyavailableonlineversionsharingaggregatedatatrends–actsasasinglepointofreferencetogiveanoverviewofwhoisreceiving,whattypeofassistance(andhowmuch),wheretheassistanceisreceived,andwhentheassistanceistransferred.InMay2016,theSingleRegistrywaspopulatedwithinformationon883,000beneficiaryhouseholds(approximately3.7millionindividuals)outofapopulationof44million,equivalentto8%ofthenationalpopulation.

Figure 9: Programmes that form Kenya’s Single Registry

HSNP MIS

NSNP MIS

CASHTRANSFERFOROVCMIS

OPCT/PwSDMIS

WFP’sFOODASSISTANCEMIS

HSNPDATABASE

CT-OVCDATABASE

OPCT/PwSDDATABASE

WFP’sCTMDATABASE

SINGLEREGISTRY

NATIONALPOPULATIONREGISTRY

30 MILLIONID DATABASE

Mass registration

understaken by International NGO’s

Geographic-basedregistration understaken byChildrenOfficers&LocationOVCCommittees

Geographic-basedregistration understaken by Social Development Officers&LocationOVC

Committees

Electronic registration

understaken by implementation

partners

C I V I L REGISTRATIONSYSTEM

Authors. Note: Boxes indicate databases, circles indicate MISs, bold lines indicate direct link (e.g. web service access), dotted linesindicate indirect link (batch process, CDs etc.), double arrows indicate info flowing in both directions, single arrows indicate info flowing in just one direction.

38 The main source for this Case Study is Barca, 2017.


6.2.1 Background and historical evolution

Historically, socialprotectionprogrammes inKenyawerenotwellcoordinatedand fragmented,presentingduplicationsandinconsistencies,andledbydifferentagencies–resultinginalackofefficiency(WorldBank,2012).Overtime,therewasgrowingrecognitionthatthereshouldbeasystematicapproachtodataandinformationmanagementacrossthesector.

Kenya’sSocialProtectionPolicy,whichwasgazetted in2012, comprehensivelyaddressedpolicy coordination, including theinstitutionalframeworkandmanagementinformationsystemsneededtomakeithappen.Thepolicyalsoenvisionedthecountry’sSingleRegistryasplayingacentralroleinestablishingacoherentandscalableapproachtosocialprotection,“TheGovernmentrecognizestheneedtoestablishamanagementinformationsystem(MIS)forsocialprotectioninKenya”39.ThisvisionwasalsoreflectedintheMediumtermplan(MTP)ofKenya’sVision2030andwasstronglyledbytheNationalSocialProtectionSecretariat.

In2011,theprocesstoachievesuchintegrationwasnotclear.SomeoftheprogrammesthatweregoingtobeintegrateddidnothaveanelectronicdatabaseorrelatedMIS,whilenoneoftheexistingdatabasescouldspeaktoeach-otherandnostandardisationofdataexistedacrossdatabases(forexampletherewerenouseofstandardgeographiclocationsacrossprogrammes).Totackletheseproblems, in2011aWorkingGroupwasestablishedwithmembers from the country’s five coreprogrammes to startdiscussingstandardisation.Recommendationsdevelopedonthebasisofon-goingassessmentsledtoafirstachievement,withgovernment-ledcashtransferMISsharmonisedin2013.WithtechnicalassistancefromWFP,fullintegrationacrossprogrammeswasachievedin2014-2015,includingintegrationwiththecountry’sCivilRegistrationauthority.ThesystemwentintofullusebyApril2015whenlinkagetoCivilRegistrationwasestablished.

6.2.2 Institutional arrangements

TheNationalSocialProtectionPolicyveststheNationalCouncilforSocialProtection40withtheoverallstrategicdirectionforsocialprotection.SupportandcoordinationisprovidedbytheSocialProtectionSecretariat,locatedwithintheMinistryofLabourandEastAfricanAffairs(MLEAA).SinceKenya’sSingleRegistryisessentiallyawarehouse,holdinginformationonallthebeneficiariesofthenationalsocialprotectionsystem,datacollectionandupdatingisundertakenbyindividualprogrammeMISs.

TheHeadoftheSocialProtectionSecretariatisfullyresponsiblefortheoverallmanagementoftheSingleRegistry.Technicaladministration(databackupandensuringthatthesystemisupandrunning)isundertakenbyanMISCoordinatorsupportedbytwoassistants.SinceeffectivefunctionalityofindividualprogrammeMISsisimportanttoensureupdateoftheSingleRegistry,anMISworkinggroupwascreated tobring togetherMISspecialists from individualprogrammes–coordinatedby theMISCoordinatorattheSecretariat.ThisgroupleadsinprovidingtechnicaloversighttoSingleRegistrydevelopment.Anexternalconsultancyfirm,DevelopmentPathwayswascontractedinitiallybyDFIDandmorerecentlybyWorldFoodProgrammetobuildandmaintaintheSingleRegistry.

6.2.3 How Kenya’s single registry is structured in practice

6.2.3.1 Data sources and linkages

Asdiscussedabove,themainsourceofdatafortheSingleRegistryarethecountry’sfivesocialprotectionprogrammedatabases.ThebroaddatasetofinformationonSingleRegistryandprogrammedatabaseissetoutintable7overleaf.

39 National Social Protection Policy, page 22.40 Bill soon to be passed


Table 7: Information kept within the Single Registry

REGISTRATION MEMBERS CHARACTERISTICS PAYMENTS COMPLAINTS

• County• District• Division• Location• Ward• Sub Location• Village• Physical Address• Land Mark• GPS Coordinates

• ID number• Names• Sex• Relationshipto headof household• BirthCertificate• Age• Orphanhood• School attendance• Grade• Disability• Chronicillness• Occupation• Marital Status

• Dwelling characteristics• Assets• Flagwhether household benefitsfrom other programmes• Type of programme• Real-estate ownership• Employment terms• Business ownership• Income• Expenditure• Meals

• Transfer amount• Frequencyof payment• Dates of actual payment• Amount paid

• Date of submission of complaint• Reasons for complaint• Stage in process(and date)• Confirmationof action taken• Date of resolution

ToensurethatdataontheSingleRegistryandprogrammeMISsisverified(i.e.accurate),theSingleRegistryisalsolinkedtoIPRS–adepartmentintheMinistryofInteriorandCoordinationthatmaintains30millionplusNationalPopulationRegister–andlinkstoothergovernmentandprivatesectorprovidersusinganautomatedsoftwaremechanism(webservice).Itisworthemphasizingthat the registration of potential beneficiaries for safety net programmes in Kenyawas historically conducted by recordingpersonalinformationfromformalformsofidentification,includingnationalidentitycardsandpassports.TheintegrationofSingleRegistryandIPRSenablesNSNPtoverifydetailsoftheirbeneficiariesandauthenticityofpotentialbeneficiariesbeforeenrollingthem.

6.2.3.2 How data is collected and updated

Data collection and updating for Kenya’s Single Registry isundertakenbyindividualprogrammes.Owingtothefactthattheseprogrammeshavebeensetupfordifferentpurposes,theirregistration(datacollection)approachesanddataneedsaredifferent. There are plans currently to standardise information collection.

Intermsofregistration,exceptforHSNP(whichfolloweda‘pure’censusapproachforitssecondphaseregistration),othersocialassistanceprogrammesinKenyaundertakea‘push’registrationonanannualbasis.Forthepurposesofthiscasestudy,Push Registrationisdefinedasaprocesswheregovernmentpurposelyandperiodicallygoestocommunitiestoregisterasetnumberofbeneficiariesthroughadhoccommitteesandwithhelpoflocaladministrators,withoutresortingtoadoortodoorcensus(KiddandHossain,2014).Table3describesthehistoricaldatacollectionprocessbyeachindividualprogrammethatformstheSingle Registry.


Table 8: Approaches to data collection and updating

PROGRAMME DATACOLLECTIONMETHODAPPROACH

DATACOLLECTIONANDUPDATINGPROCESSOPCT/PWSDCT

OPCT/PwSDCT PushRegistration(varianton census surveyapproach)

Geographic-basedregistrationisundertakenbySocialDevelopmentOfficersandLocationOVCCommittees.Thenumberofregisteredapplicantsarebasedonquotassetbytheexpansionplanandgovernmentannualbudgetallocations. Besides regular updates to remove deceasedbeneficiaries,OPCTundertookarecertificationprocessin2015withtheaimofupdatingitslistofbeneficiariesandexcludinghouseholdsthatarenolongereligible.

CT-OVCProgramme PushRegistration(varianton census surveyapproach)

Geographic-basedregistrationisundertakenbyChildrenOfficersandLocationOVCCommittees.Thenumbersarebasedonquotassetbytheexpansionplanandgovernmentannualbudgetallocations.Besidesregularupdates,CT-OVCplanstopilotre-certificationduring2015/2016financialyears.

HSNP CensusSurvey RegistrationisundertakenwithsupportofcontractedNGOs.HSNPisintheprocessofare-registrationprocess(2016).Onceundertaken(registrationandtargeting),thiswillleadtotheupdateoftheSingleRegistrybyprovidinganewsetofbeneficiaries.

WFP’sJengaJamii PushRegistration(varianton census surveyapproach)

Registrationisundertakenwithsupportofcontracted cooperating partners based on programme targets.

ExceptforHSNPandWFP’sCTMwhicharepurelyelectronic,alltheotherNSNPprogrammes(CT-OVC,OPCT,PwSDCTandUFSP-CT)registerhouseholdsmanually (firstdata-capture).Thepaperwork isthentransportedfromthefieldtotheNationalofficefortranscriptionintotheprogrammeMIS.RecentlytheDSDdecentralizedthetranscriptionprocessfromtheNationaltotheCountylevel.Sofar,therehasbeenanindicationofageneralimprovementinthequalityofdatacapturedandtimelinessoftheregistrationprocess,attributedtonearnesstothedatasource.

Each programme has specific operational guidelines to ensure currency of their data based on their targeting approaches. For example, three programmes (OPCT, PwSDCT and CT-OVC) are categorical schemes that are poverty targeted. Theseprogrammescontinuouslyupdatetheirdatatoexitbeneficiarieswhoarenolongereligible.Forinstance,aseniorcitizenwhohasdiedoranorphanwhohasturned23areexitedfromOPCTandCT-OVCrespectively.Whenthishappens,theSingleRegistryisautomaticallyupdated.SingleRegistryisalsoupdatedtobringinnewreplacementsforbeneficiariesthathavebeenexited.ThisisverycommonwithOPCT.Finally,asdiscussedabove,largeenrolmentsofnewbeneficiariesarenormallyundertakenannuallybasedongovernment’sbudgetallocationsandinlinewithexpansionplans.


6.2.3.3 How data is transferred

Untilearly2015,thetransferofdatafromprogrammeMIStotheSingleRegistrywasnotautomatic.Thismeantthatdatahadtobemovedmanuallyandtheprocessdidnotguaranteeup-to-datedataattheSingleRegistry.Asaresult,twomethodologiesforautomatictransferofdatabetweenindividualMISsandtheSingleRegistryweretested:(i)Dataexchangeusingwebservices,and(ii)AutomaticreplicationusingMicrosoftSQLtools.Atechnicalassessmentofthetwoshowedthatthelatterwasappropriatefor the Kenyan context because: (i) all the programme databaseswere set upwithMicrosoft SQL Server; (ii) technically, itwas possible to configure a homogenous replicationmechanism; (iii) using web service option would have requiredmoreprogrammingtime.Therefore,an automatic replication of data from the CT-OVC, joint OPCT/PwSD-CT and the HSNP MISs to the Single Registry was configured using an SQL server, giving each programme database a mirror copy on the Single Registry server(andthusactingasareal-timebackup).

Apart from sending data to Single Registry,eachprogrammeMIScanconnecttothe Single Registry and access its data usingwebservice(“BioDataVerification”).Thewebservicelinkenablesprogrammes(throughtheirMISs)toaccessdataonbeneficiaries for thepurposesof verificationofpotentialbeneficiariesbefore theyareenrolled.“BioDataVerification”webservice specifically ensures that adultmembers (with national IDs) of potential beneficiary households are: (i) authenticatedagainsttheIPRSPopulationRegister;(ii)checkedagainstSingleRegistrytodeterminewhetheronememberbenefitsfromoneor multiple programmes.

TheSingleRegistrycurrentlyworksasatooltosupportprogrammemonitoringandcoordinationofsocialprotectionsector.Assuch, itsprimaryusersareprogrammestaffat thenationalandsub-national level.Therefore,programme staff working at national as well as decentralised units of government (counties and sub-counties) are also provided access to Single Registry.Infact,theSingleRegistry‘enquiriesmodule’hasbecomeaneffectivetooltorespondtoprogrammequeries,asitaccessibleovertheInternet.Theenquiriesmoduleisusedtocheckwhetherbeneficiarieshavebeenenrolledbyprogrammesorwhetherpaymentshavebeendeliveredtobeneficiaries.Goingforward,thereareplanstodeepentheuseofSingleRegistrydatabytargetingothergovernmententities-e.g.otherministriesandcounties(communication)–atbothnationalandlocallevelaswellasprovidinganaccessportaltobeneficiariesusingnationalIDassearchparameter.

Data from the Single Registry to external stakeholders is transferred in excel format by email or on disk. TheSocialProtectionSecretariathasdevelopedandsignedoffdatasharingprotocolsthatdefine:(i)ProceduresforapplicationforuseofSingleRegistrydata;(ii)Proceduresforassessingtheapplication;(iii)Proceduresforapproval,sharingand;(i)disposalofdata.Examplesofinstitutionsthathaverequesteddatabasedontheprotocolsinclude:otherSocialProtectionProgrammes;othernationalgovernmentinstitutionse.g.Parliament;implementationpartnerse.g.PaymentServiceProviders;Donororganizationsi.e.DFID,DFAT,WorldBank,UNICEF,WFP;internationalNGOs;andNationalNGOs.

6.2.3.4 How data is processed and used for targeting

After data is captured on ProgrammeMISs, each undergoes a validation based on the procedures defined in programmeOperations Manuals. Each core step (registration, determination of eligibility and enrolment) is supported by individualprogrammeMISs:thedatathatisconsolidatedintheSingleRegistryisonlyfromprogrammebeneficiaries.

Importantly,however,theoverarchingintegrationhasaddedvaluetotheverificationphaseforeachprogrammeintwoways:(i)byenablingacheckofpotentialbeneficiariesagainsttheSingleRegistrytodeterminehouseholdsthatcouldbebenefittingfrommorethanoneprogramme(ii)bycomparisonwithIPRS’snationalpopulationregistertodetermineaccuracyoftheinformationcollectedonpotentialbeneficiaries(especiallyIDnumbers,names,dateofbirthandsex).Thepotentialbeneficiarieswhodonotmeetthecriteria(i.e.alreadyenrolledinanotherprogramme)arede-registered.

6.2.3.5 How information is used

TheSingleRegistrythroughitsMISplatformisusedfororganisingandmanagingthedataforsocialprotectionprogrammesinKenya.TheSingleRegistryenablestheflowandmanagementofinformationwithinandbetweensocialprotectionprogrammesandinsomeinstances,othersectors.


Theinformationisutilisedbylocalandnationalgovernment,policymakers,socialsafetynetprogramsdesignersandmanagers.Kenya’sSingleRegistryrespondstothefollowingstakeholderissues:

• Prevention Error/Fraud.InformationintheRegistryisrunagainstdataon30millionIPRS’NationalPopulationRegister, allowingprogrammemanagerstobesurethatbeneficiaries’detailsareaccurate/verified.

• Programme Efficiency and Effectiveness.Crosscheckismadewhetherbeneficiariesenrolledinaprogrammeareonthe payroll,andwhetherthenumberofbeneficiariesscheduledtobepaidequalsthoseactuallypaid.

• Monitoring Programme Implementation.SingleRegistrysupportsprogrammemonitoring,andhasaspecificreportthat allowsmonitoringoftheselectedindicatorsacrossprogrammes.

• Planning Expansion of Social Protection Programmes. TheexpansionplanoftheNationalSafetyNetProgramhasbeen integratedwiththeSingleRegistrysothatuserscancross-referenceattainmentagainstobjectiveforany programme.

• Foundation for Establishment of Common Delivery Systems.Withaconsolidatedpayrollofbeneficiariesfromexisting cashtransferschemes;theSingleRegistryisakeyresourceforcreatingothercommondeliverysystems,includingpayment systems,whichwillreducethecostsassociatedwithdeliveringbenefits.

• Basis for Emergency Response.HSNPsub-registrycontainsbankaccountdetailsforhouseholdsinfourpoorestcounties (Turkana,Wajir,ManderaandMarsabit)enablingemergencyresponseincaseofdrought.

SinceFebruary2016,SPSecretariatalsoprovidesopenwebaccesstothedataonkeyperformanceindicatorsoftheNSNP.

Figure 10: Sample of Single Registry summary statistics

67.885

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

TargetedBeneficiaryHouseholds-Year2014/2015

253

85

210

27

97.236

CTOVC HSNP OPCT PwSD-CT WFP-CT

NumberoftargetedBenefiaryHouseholds(inthousands)

RegisteredBeneficiaryHouseholds-Year2014/2015

253

253 76.553

227.053

27.476

CTOVC HSNP OPCT PwSD-CT WFP-CT

NumberoftargetedBenefiaryHouseholds(inthousands)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


6.2.3.6 Data security and privacy

TheSocial ProtectionSecretariat hasdeveloped comprehensivedataprotection and sharingprotocols. Thepurposeof theNSNPdatasharingprotocolsarefivefold:(i)Provideaframeworkforthesecureandconfidentialsharingofinformation(ii)Ensurepersonalinformationishandledinasensitivemannerandonlydisclosedonneed-to-knowandneed-to-usebasis(iii)Provideabasiswhereanonymiseddataaboutanindividualbeneficiaryormembercanbesharedwithoutconsentinaformwheretheidentitycannotberecognised(iv)CreateatransparentproceduretoincreaseusageoftheNationalSafetyNetProgram(NSNP)datatolayeradditionalservicestocashtransferbeneficiaries;and(v)Ensurethattherightsofprogrammebeneficiariesespeciallytheirprivacy isnot infringedasenshrinedontheKenyanConstitutionandother Internationalconventions.ThedatasharingprotocolsarebasedontheKenyanConstitution,Kenya’sDataProtectionAct-2013andotherinternationalconventionssuchasCouncilofEurope’sConvention,UnitedNationsGuidelinesConcerningComputerizedPersonalDataFiles,OECDGuidelinesontheProtectionofPrivacyandTrans-BorderFlowsofPersonalDataandUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights.

SummaryandaggregateddataontheprogrammesthatformSingleRegistrycanbeaccessedthroughapublicportal.However,PersonalDataorrequestfordataonbeneficiaryhouseholdlistingisaccessedonneedtoknowandneedtousebasis.Foralldatarequests,theapplicantsmustassenttodataconfidentialityagreementsthathavespecificguidelinesonuseanddisposalofthedata.

6.2.4 Main challenges and lessons learned

The management of information for the different social protection programmes in Kenya has been significantly improvedsincetheinceptionoftheSingleRegistry.SocialProtectionprogrammesinKenyaarebettermanagedandoperated,whilethecoordination,oversightandmonitoringofthesocialassistancesectorismadepossiblebySingleRegistry.TheSingleRegistryhas enabled the government and other key stakeholders to conceptualise the coordinated of the programs in a clear andcoordinated manner.

KeylessonsfromtheimplementationofKenya’sSingleRegistryincludethefollowing:

• ApproachestodevelopingIntegratedSystemsforInformationManagementshouldbeconstruedmorebroadlyasapolicy tool.Kenya’sSocialProtectionpolicyunderscoredtheneedfortheSingleRegistryandenvisionedtheset-upofindividual programmeswithfunctionalMISspopulatingtheSingleRegistry.

• AdequateinvestmentshouldbemadetodeliverqualityRegistrydesign,basedonneedsassessmentsandfeasibility studies(seealsoSection1)–bothimportantforlongtermsustainability.

• ThedevelopmentofaSingleRegistryshouldbephased.Phasinghelpsensure:

• Ease of managing project sub-components• Incorporatinglessonsfrompreviousphasesinnextphases• Lessriskoffailureandriskofoverwhelmingexistingcapacity• Ad-hocstrengtheningofbusinessprocessesandsystems

Thekeychallengesthathavebeenexperiencedduringthesetupinclude:

• Conceptualisation:atfirst,itwasdifficulttotechnicallyconceptualisehowsocialassistanceprogrammescouldbe coordinated.Nowthemodelisclearandlogical,butittookalotofassessmentandthinkingtogetthere.

• Coordination: theSecretariathadtoundertakeamassivetasktoactuallycoordinateindividualprogrammestoinvesttime andresourcesinanMIS.NoweachsocialassistanceprogrammeownsitsownMISandisacorepartoftheSingleRegistry. Itworksforalltheactorsinvolved.

• Resources:inordertosavetimeandmoneyinthefuture,anupfrontinvestmentisneeded.Overtheyears,various developmentpartnershavesteppedintosupporttheGovernmentinmakingthishappen.


ThenextstageinthedevelopmentoftheSingleRegistrywillbetoensurethatallprogrammeMISscanbemanagedatdistrictlevel–throughaweb-basedsystem–andthatinformationonbeneficiariescanbeupdatedasclosetorealtimeaspossible.ThebroaderplanistoalsobringonboardothercomponentsofthesocialprotectionsystemsuchastheNationalSocialHealthInsuranceschemeandtheNationalSocialSecurityFund(NSSF).

6.3 SOUTH AFRICA’S SOCPENTheRepublicofSouthAfrica’sDepartmentofSocialDevelopment (DSD),established in1929, runsa comprehensivesystemofsocialassistancegrantsandprocesses16,991,63441grantsmonthly(collectedbyjustover11millionrecipients).Thecostisestimatedtobe3.5percentofthecountry’sgrossdomesticproduct.ThegrantsareprocessedusingalegacyinformationmanagementsystemcalledSOCPEN,whichstartedinthe1930s.SouthAfrica’ssocialprotectionsystemissimilarintwowaystothesocialsecuritysysteminhigh-incomecountries—itsprogramsaremeanstestedandnationalincoverage.ResponsibilityrestswiththeDSDandSouthAfricaSocialSecurityAgency(SASSA).WhileDSDisresponsibleforpolicy,legislationandoversight,SASSAisinchargeofprogramimplementation.

6.3.1 Objective and institutional arrangements of SOCPEN

SASSAismandatedbytheSouthAfricanSocialSecurityAgencyActto:‘…ensuretheprovisionofcomprehensivesocialsecurityservicesagainstvulnerabilityandpovertywithintheconstitutionallegislativeframework.’

SASSAhasMoUswithotherministriesandgovernmentstructuresandhassucceededinsettinguponlineinterfacesfordataexchangewiththeDepartmentofHomeAffairsandPERSAL,thegovernmentpay-rollsystem.

6.3.2 How SOCPEN is structured in practice

SOCPENrunsonmainframeslocatedatSITA.Itsenterprisedatabase,Adabas,managesmorethan2300concurrentusersandhasaregisterofmorethan16millionbeneficiaries.

ThesystemoperatesthroughoutSASSAofficesbutcannotbeaccessedthroughtheInternetforonlineapplicationprocessing.ApplicantsmustcompleteapplicationformsinthepresenceofaSASSAofficerandtheseareenteredintoSOCPEN,whichallowsreal-time tracking of progress and reduces problems of lost or misplaced forms.

6.3.2.1 Data sources

SOCPENisaprimarydatabaseforbeneficiaryinformationmanagement.AsshowninFigure7,itislinkedtootherdatasources,including:

• ApplicantsofthesixsocialgrantsfeedingintoSOCPEN• Afiletrackingsystemprovidingreal-timeinformationonthestatusofsocialgrantapplications• Livelink,adocumentmanagementsystemthatscansandmanagesrecordsofgrantrecipients.

SOCPEN interfaceswith other governmentMISs, themost important ofwhich is theDepartment ofHomeAffairs and canprovidereal-timeinformationfromthepopulationregister.Forexample,whenadeathisreported,theinformationisconveyedtoSOCPENimmediatelyleadingtoterminationofpayments.Dataisalsousedtoestablishbeneficiary status(forexample,agecut-offs).

41 Source: SOCPEN fact sheet, 31 March 2016 and useful integrations from Caesar Vundule and Carin Koster. The current estimate of South Africa’s population is 54 million.


Figure 11: Overall structure of SOCPEN

Source: Developed by authors on the basis of Chirchir (2011).

AnonlineinterfacehasbeenestablishedwithPERSAL,tocrosscheckincomedata.Otheradhocdatasources(notlinkedonline)forthisinclude:theUnemploymentInsuranceFund;GovernmentEmployeesPensionFund;payrollsystemoftheDefenceForce;NationalTreasury(toverifybeneficiarybankingdetails);DepartmentofBasicEducation’slearnerdatabase;andspecialinvestigationsunit(toidentifyfraudulentgrants).

Innovatively,biometricsystemsareinplaceforbeneficiariestocollecttheirmoneyandprovetheiridentity,includingfingerprintsandvoicerecognition.

6.3.2.2 Data collection

GiventhatSOCPENisademand-basedsystem,bywhichpotentialbeneficiariesapplytotheprogramat localSASSAofficeregistrationpoints,theprocessofdatacollectionandregistrationison-going,allowingforregularupdatingandre-certifying.Box11hasmoredetailsonthesocialgrantslifecycle.

FILETRACKINGSYSTEM ‘MIS’

540 SASSALOCALOFFICES

DOCUMENTMANAGEMENT

(livelink)

ON DEMANDAPPLICATION

SOCPENMIS

SOCPEN

DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS

OTHER GOVERNMENT

SYSTEMS

POPULATION REGISTER

THEIR DATABASES


Box 11: Social Grants lifecycle in South Africa

The socialgrants lifecycle inSouthAfrica statswithapplicationsmadeondemandat localSASSAoffice registrationpoints. Details captured include personal information, address, income, deductions, age and disability. Applicationsarescreenedwithapplicants identifiedandproofof incomeprovided. If there is Internetaccess,grantsofficersenterdetailsintoSOCPEN.Legally,applicationsshouldbeprocessedwithin21days.However,currentinitiativesaimtoreduceturnaroundtimeto24hours.

Thenextstepisapprovalorrejectionbasedonapplicantinformationprovided,andcriteriadefinedforthemeanstest.Applicantsareinformedofoutcomesthroughnotificationletters.

Oncenotified,applicantsareenrolledintothescheme.ThenSOCPEN’spayrollproducesapaymentscheduleaggregatedbyprovincesandpaymentserviceproviders.SASSAusesthreepaymentmethods:bankdeposits;handdelivery;andpickupfromapostoffice.

SOCPENmonitorseligibilityofapprovedbeneficiaries.Routinemaintenancecertifiesifbeneficiariesarealiveandupdatesthepovertystatusofexistingbeneficiaries.SOCPENsystemring-fencesbeneficiariesdueforreviewandnotificationsareprepared.Thosestilleligiblearereinstated,whilethosewhoskipreviewsaresuspended.

Source: Barca and Chirchir (2014)

6.3.2.3 How information from SOCPEN is used

SOCPEN handles 2300 concurrent users. This is impressive for a legacy system that has consistently processedmore than16milliongrantsamonth.Sincesocialsecurityimplementationishandledbyoneagency,itcanbearguedthatSouthAfricaoperates a ‘single window’ for processing applicants.

SOCPENalso:

• processesapplicationsforthecountry’ssixsocialgrants

• determinesbeneficiariesfromthelistofapplicants

• maintainsthepayrollforthemonthly16millionplusgrants

• automaticallyproducesalistofbeneficiariestobere-assessed.

Thesystemhaslimits,however.SASSAemployeesarethemainusersoftheinformationkeptbySOCPEN.Moreover,SOCPENisnotanorganisation-widesystemandsonotallofSASSA’soperationsarecomputerised.Indeed,SASSAalsohastomaintainotheroperationalMISs(forexample,financial,humanresourcemanagement,callcentresandageographicinformationtrackingsystem).

PlansareunderwaytomigrateSOCPENtoagraphicaluserinterfacewhilemaintainingitsrobustdatabaseplatform(PetersonandAppel,2012).Thenewsystemwillintegratecurrentserviceswithcomplianceservices,back-officefunctionsandbusinessintelligence services.


6.3.3 Further pushes for integration: the national integrated social Information system42

SASSA’splanstomigratetoagraphicaluserinterfacehaveruninparallelwithplanstointegratethesocialinformationneededbyhigherlevelsofgovernment.ThisneedoriginallycamefromthenationalWaronPovertyCampaignlaunchedin2007bytheOfficeofthePresidentaftera10-yearreviewofanti-povertyservicesofferedsinceIndependence.TherationaleforcreatinganewNISISwastodevelopcross-ministry,anti-povertystrategiesandgatherinformationontheconditionsofthepoor.SASSA’son-demandsystemwasinsufficientforthissinceitdoesnothaveacompleteprofileofthepoor.Afeasibilitystudyandproof-of-conceptforNISISwerecompletedin2009,financeddirectlybytheTreasury.

Sincethen,aswithmost largeconceptual ideas,NISIS’sdevelopmenthasbeena journey. In2009,aformalpartnershipwasestablishedbetweentheWaronPovertyCampaignandtheDepartmentofRuralDevelopmentandLandReform.Thedepartmenttookownershipof theproject and has enabled theon-goingdevelopment ofNISIS in support of itsComprehensiveRuralDevelopmentProgramme,whichfocusedonhouseholdprofilingandservicereferralscapabilities.TheDSDwastoleadoverallcoordinationbutitneverdidso,partlybecauseNISIShadnoinstitutionalandlegalframeworkandnostructure.SASSAhasbeenalmostcutout,suchthatSOCPENdatahasneverbeenfedintotheNISISdatabase.Similarly,theTreasuryhasnotsupportedtheprojectdueto‘generalscepticismoverlargescaleITprojects’(DaSilva,2012).

Asaconsequence,someprovincialgovernmentsareexperimentingwithplayingastrongerroleincoordinatingthesocialpolicywithintheirremit,includingNorthCapeandMpumalangaprovincesandinJohannesburg.

Despiteanysuccessatprovinciallevel,theNISISremainsfarfrombeingwhatitsetouttobe.TheDSDistryingtoreconceptualisetheNISIS toalign itwithdepartmentalprioritiesand focuseson internal coordinationand implementationof an integratedservice delivery model.

6.3.4 Main challenges and lessons learned

6.3.4.1 SOCPEN

SOCPENisstable,supportsmostgrantoperationsandinterfaceswithsomeothergovernmentMISstocrosscheckinformationandpreventfraud.However,ithasitslimits,including:

• reachingitsabilitytobecustomisedandbeingovertakenbymanytechnologicalchanges

• processes producing substantial volume of paper and forms

• not being an organisation-wide system covering all SASSA operations

• positioningSASSAsoithastomaintainotheroperationalMISs,whichisinefficientandleadstoduplicationofdatastoring (makingreporting,monitoringandevaluationdifficult)

• linkingwithotherMISsbutnotalwaysinrealtime

• notbeingsetuptointegratedataandinformationmanagement,whichmeansitsoverallfocusisonmanagingoperational processesforgrantdeliveryratherthanonpolicycoordinationandoversight.

• Despitetheselimitations,severallessonscanbedrawnfromSouthAfrica’sexperience:

• Old is gold. Eventhoughitisalegacysystembuiltonanon-graphicaluserinterfacebasedonmainframes, SOCPENhasdeliveredrelativelywell.

• Support from SITA.SITAplaysapivotalroleinsupportingandmaintainingSOCPEN.Infact,SOCPENishostedon mainframesheldatSITA.Retainingtalentedstaffisachallenge.Thegovernmentneedstobuildinternalsupport mechanismstorunMISsystemnationally,throughadedicatedinformationandcommunicationstechnologyagencyora strong internal support team.

42 This section has been partly informed by discussions with an information technology consultant involved in developing NISIS.

1


6.3.4.2 National Integrated Social Information System

SOCPEN’sproblemshavenotbeenaddressedbytheNISIS,provinghowlackofpolicycoordinationandinstitutionalarrangementsareatthebasisofITfailure,nottheotherwayround.Issuesinclude:

• Lack of national DSD involvement and ownership TheprovincialDSDsaresometimesdeeplyinvolvedintheWaron Poverty.Atnationallevel,involvementhasbeenalmostnon-existent.TheNISIS,therefore,isnotalwaysseenasrelevant.

• Slow profiling progress Householdprofilingisamassive,labourintensiveandlogisticallycomplexexercisewhichtheWar onPovertyorComprehensiveRuralDevelopmentProgrammewerenotcapableofperforming(includingbecauseoflackof resources).ThiswascompoundedbyincreasinglackofinterestfromtheTreasuryandcentralgovernmentandno coordinatingeffortbytheDSD.

• Lack of service deliverySeveralfactorshaveledtolackofservicedeliveryincluding:(i)excessfocusonhousehold profilingtargetsattheexpenseofservicedelivery;(ii)lackoffocusand/orclarityontheservicestobeprioritisedfor delivery;(iii)limitedcoordinationcapacityandauthorityontheground;(iv)closetonon-existentcoordinationmodels andinstitutionalarrangements;(v)nodedicatedresourcesfromlinedepartmentsmeaningprogramscompeteagainst theirdepartment’sinternalpriorities;(vi)absenceofaclearpoliticalorlegislativemandatenecessarytomarshaltheline departments responsible for service delivery.

CASE STUDIES

7CONCLUSIONSThisModulehasclearlyshownthat–whenmadeapriority–programmeMISsareapowerfultooltoefficientlyimplement,manageandmonitorsocialprotectionprogrammes.DevelopinganIntegratedSystemforInformationManagement–thatenablestheflowandmanagementofinformationwithintheSocialProtectionsectorandsometimesbeyond–canhavefurtherpolicyandoperationaladvantages:

• Policy advantagescanincludeamoreequitableapproachtodistributingresources basedonobjectiveandcomparableinformation;increasedresponsivenessand inclusivenessofinterventions(potentiallyensuringuniversalcoverage),increased transparencyandaccountability(andimproved‘image’oftheSocialProtectionsystem); increasedlinkstocomplementaryservicesandsectors,and;increasedknowledgeon issues around poverty and vulnerability.

• Operational advantagescanincludefacilitatedoversightofmultipleschemes,reportingto policymakers,andabilitytomodelandtestpolicychanges;decreasedburdenonstaff(e.g. lesspaperwork)andonpotentialapplicants(e.g.streamlinedaccesstoservices);increased efficiencyofdeliverybyavoidingduplicationofefforts,enablingeconomiesofscale,and ensuringbettermanagementoferrorandfraud,and;improvedmanagement,forexample enablingbeneficiariestotransitionbetweenschemesastheircircumstanceschangeand establishingmoreeffectiveemergencyresponseswhileensuringimprovedM&E,planning and coordination at sector and potentially crosssector level.

The extent to which these advantages are achieved greatly depends on the approach tointegration selected (developing a Social Registry, Integrated Beneficiary Registry or VirtualSocial Registry, see Section 4.2) and the overarching objectives pursued. It is clear that,whereasmanystakeholdersunderstandMISsandtheirregistries/databasesfromanInformationTechnology(e.g.softwareandhardware)perspective,theyareprimarilyapolicytool.Thishasseveralimplications:

• ItisessentialforSocialProtectionstakeholderstosetthepolicy,legalandoperational frameworkfortheestablishmentoftheirMISsorIntegratedSystemforInformation.

• Indeterminingthemodeltosetup,developingcountriesshouldnot(eventhoughitis naturaltolooktoexistingexamples)becasuallyseducedbymodelsarisingfrommiddle- incomecountries(e.g.Brazil,SouthAfricaandIndonesia).Instead,thechoicemustbe carefullymadeinlightofcountry-specificpurpose,needs,andcontext(includingexisting opportunitiesandcapacity/financialconstraints).


• GiventheoverarchingobjectiveofdataandinformationmanagementintheSocialProtectionfield–collectingandsharing informationtotakeactionsoastoimprovethestandardsoflifeofthepoorestandmostvulnerablecitizens–itisimportant toinvolveallpotentialstakeholdersinthedesignanddevelopmentprocess.Thiscanbedonethroughanin-depthNeeds Assessment(seeSection5.2)andFeasibilityStudy(Section1)andbykeepingkeyactorscontinuouslyinvolved (e.g.SteeringCommittee,continuoususer-testing,etc.);

• ThedevelopmentofahighqualityprogrammeMIS–andtoagreaterextentthedevelopmentofanIntegratedSystemfor InformationManagement–requiresacomplex,costly,lengthyanditerativeprocesswhichrequiresveryhighcapacity. Riskoffailureishigh,andnotforIT-relatedreasons.Governmentslackingsufficientcapacitywillneedtobeadvised/guided inthedevelopmentprocess,whileinvestingincapacity-development.

• Whenanalysingothercountries’strategiestodataandinformationmanagementthefocusshouldnotfallonwhatthe systemiscalled,butonthefunctionsitperforms-especiallywherethedataisflowingfromandto,andwhatpractical implicationsthathas.

7.1 IMPLICATIONS FOR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

TheimplicationsforSubSaharanAfricaareextensive,giventheimportanceofcountryneedsandcontextindeterminingthe‘right’solutiontodataandinformationmanagement.Sixmainconsiderationsshouldbenoted.

First of all, from a policy perspective, a wide range of countries in the region are swiftly striving towards the creation ofacomprehensivevisionofSocialProtectionpolicy(inlinewiththeILOSocialProtectionFloorRecommendation).Thisisreflectedincountrystrategydocumentsandinregionaleffortsandhasalreadytranslatedintopractice–asTable9belowshows.

Table 9: African countries which have developed or are developing integrated systems for information management in the Social Protection sector

EXISTINGINTEGRATEDSYSTEMS INTEGRATEDSYSTEMSTHATAREBEINGDEVELOPED

• CaboVerde,UniqueRegistry• Kenya,SingleRegistry• Lesotho,NationalInformationSystemforSocial Assistance(NISSA)• Mauritius,SocialRegisterofMauritius(SRM)• Seychelles,IntegratedMIS• SouthAfrica,SOCPEN

• Benin,UniqueRegistry• Djibouti,UniqueRegister• Egypt,UnifiedNationalRegistry• Ethiopia,NationalHouseholdRegistry(SocialRegistry) andCentralSocialProtectionManagement InformationSystem(IntegratedBeneficiaryRegistry)• Ghana,GhanaNationalHouseholdRegistry(GNHR)• Liberia(N/A)• Malawi,UnifiedBeneficiaryRegistry• Mali,SocialRegistry• Mauritania,NationalSocialRegistry• Morocco,UnifiedRegister• Nigeria(N/A)• Rwanda,IntegratedManagementInformationSystem• Senegal,UniqueRegistry• Tanzania,TASAFSocialRegistry• Tunisia,UnifiedRegistryandUniqueIdentification System• Uganda(N/A)

Source: Honorati, Gentilini and Yemtsov (2015) and authors’ integrations

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

Secondly, countries across Sub-SaharanAfrica havegreat opportunities to adopt leapfrog technologywhen it comes tosettingupMISsolutions.ThishasalreadybeenthecaseincountriespioneeringtheuseofprogrammeandintegratedMISs,addressing challenges unique to the region: for example, biometric identification can overcome traditional difficulties inidentifyingbeneficiarieswithoutappropriatedocumentation;point-of-saledevicesormobilephonescanbeusedtotransfercashtonomadicorhard-to-reachbeneficiarieselectronically(allowingforinstantintegrationwithMIS);andmobilephonesorhand-helddevicesmaybeusedfordatacollection(GarciaandMoore,2012).

Third,capacity constraints will need serious tackling–atcentralandlocallevel.WhiletheMinistriesandAgenciesinchargeofimplementingSocialProtectionacrosstheregionhavebeenstrengtheningtheirroleandcadreofstaff,thereisstillasignificantlackof:a)technicalstaffatcentrallevel,capableofleadingtheMISdevelopmentprocesswhilealsounderstandingpolicyandimplementation requirements;b)field-staffat local level (e.g.acadreof socialassistants), capableofactingas liaisonswithprogramme applicants and beneficiaries. Countries that have recently succeeded in their process of data integration, suchasKenya,haveundertakenrigorousCapacityNeedsAssessments totackle this issue.Theyhavealsoadaptedtheirsystemstoexisting capacity constraints, for examplebya)graduallybuildingonexisting systems rather thanadoptinga ‘big-bang’approach,b)outsourcingdevelopmenttaskstoexternalcompaniesand/orreceivingdonortechnicalassistance,andc)adaptingbusinessprocessestocapacityconstraints(e.g.impossibilityofon-demanddatacollectionintheshorttermgivenlackoflocalstaff).

Fourth,thesustainabilityofanyMISproject–andespeciallyalargeprojectinvolvingthecreationofanintegratedsystem–islargely reliant on a sustainable source of fundingallowingforon-goingoperations(includingtrainingandtechnicalsupportforstaff),maintenanceandpotentialchanges/tweaks.ThisisproblematicincontextswhereSocialProtectionisstillstrugglingtogarnersufficientdomesticfinancing–asisoftenthecaseinSubSaharanAfrica(GarciaandMoore,2012).AnMISproject’sFeasibilityStudyshouldrealisticallyassessthecostimplicationsofdifferentmodelsofMISdevelopmentandrollout,andbaseultimatechoicesontheavailabilityofadequatefinancing.

Fifth,MISprojectsintheregionneed extensive tailoring to the specific objectives and characteristics of social assistance programs,asextensivelydescribedwithinGarciaandMoore(2012).Forexample,givenmostprogrammes’strongfocusontargetingvulnerablegroupsratherthan‘thepoor’,aunifiedapproachtopovertytargetingacrossdifferentprogramscouldbemoredifficulttoimplement.Similarly,giventhehighlevelofcommunityinvolvementinallofthe‘gateway’phasesofprogrammeimplementation,anyproposedMISsolutionwouldhavetofindawaytoaccommodatethis.

Sixth, the wider ‘enabling’ (or ‘disabling’) context also needs to be accounted for, possibly at the early design stages(Feasibility Study). From an IT standpoint, the lack of reliable mobile phone, network coverage and electricity, or lack ofbasic hardware infrastructure could seriously undermine the success of anMIS programme in the region (e.g. rural areas)– especially where one of the core objectives is improvedmanagement and coordination across central and decentralisedlevelsofgovernment. Fromawider country-contextperspective, it is essential tounderstandwhetherexistingdataprivacyand security legislation in the region is strong enough to protect already-vulnerable groups from further vulnerability.

6362 | MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS & APPROACHES TO DATA INTEGRATION

BIBLIOGRAPHYBarca,V.(2017).andChirchir,R.(2014)DemystifyingDataandInformationManagementConcepts(2014),DFAT,Australia

Barca(2017)Integratingdataandinformationmanagementforsocialprotection:socialregistriesandintegratedbeneficiaryregistries.Canberra:CommonwealthofAustralia,

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Chirchir,R.,andKidd,S.(2011)GoodPracticeintheDevelopmentofManagementInformationSystemforSocialProtection:PensionsWatch,Briefing5.HelpAgeInternational,London.

Chirchir,R.(2009)BrazilianSingleRegistry:LessonsLearnedfromtheBrazilianDelegation.UnpublishedDFIDKenyawork.

ChirchirR.et.al(2013)ReviewofBISPManagementInformationSystem,UnpublishedWorldBankPakistanChirchir,R.,andKidd,S.(2011)GoodPracticeintheDevelopmentofManagementInformationSystemforSocialProtection:SummaryofSouthAfricaandMauritiusExperiencesAnnextoPensionsWatch,Briefing5.HelpAgeInternational,London.

Coady,D.,M.GroshandJ.Hoddinott(2004).TargetingofTransfersinDevelopingCountries:ReviewofLessonsandExperience,theWorldBankandIFPRI

DelaBrière,B.,C.Roquete,S.Teixeira,E.PazandL.Aquilino(2003)CountryCaseStudy:Brazil’sCadstroUnico.

Kidd,S.andHudda,K.(2013)BolsaUnfamiliar,PathwaysPerspective,DevelopmentPathways

DelaBriere,B.andK.Lindert(2005).ReformingBrazil’sCadastroUnicotoImprovetheTargetingoftheBolsaFamiliaProgramme.WorldBank,SocialProtectionUnit.

GIZ(2012).TechnicalWorkshop:DevelopingManagementInformationSystemsforSocialProtection.WorkshopProceedings,Bishkek,6November2012

Heeks,R.(2002).InformationSystemsandDevelopingCountries:Failure,SuccessandLocalImprovisations.TheInformationSociety,18:101–112

Lecuitetal.(1999).DeMIStifyingMIS:GuidelinesforManagementInformationSystemsinSocialFunds.WorldBankTechnicalPapers,Book443

LeiteP.,George,T.,SunC.,andK.Lindert.(2017).Socialregistriesforsocialassistanceandbeyond:Aguidancenoteandassessmenttool.SocialProtectionandLabourDiscussionPaperno.1704.WashingtonDC:WorldBank.

LindertK.,J.HobbsandB.delaBriere(2007).TheNutsandBoltsofBrazil’sBolsaFamíliaProgram:ImplementingConditionalCashTransfersinaDecentralizedContext.WorldBank,SPDiscussionPaper

MostafaJandK.C,Silva(2007).Brazil’sSingleRegistryExperience:Atoolforpro-poorsocialpolicies.MinistryofSocialDevelopmentandFightAgainstHunger

Nazara,S.(2012).PovertyAlleviationProgrammeDelivery:UnifiedDatabaseandprogrammereformsinIndonesia.PPT,Brasilia,December 2012

OPM(2015).WorkshoponIntegratedDataandInformationManagementSystemsforSocialProtection11-12March2015Jakarta,Indonesia.OxfordPolicyManagement.

PetersonV.andC.Appel(2012).DevelopingManagementInformationsystemsforSocialProtection,WorkshopProceedings,Bishkek,6thNovember2012,GIZ

SamsonM.etal(2010).DesigningandImplementingSocialTransferProgrammes.EconomicPolicyResearchInstitute,CapeTown,SouthAfrica,SecondEdition

SouthAfricaInformationTechnologyAgency(SITA),EstablishmentofaSocialSecurityInformationCentre:ThecomprehensiveSocialSecurityandRetirementReformimplicationsforIT,GovernmentofSouthAfrica,2010

TeamConsult(2010)DesignofZimbabweSocialCashTransferProgramme,Unpublished

Villalobos,V.S.,G.Blanco,andL.Bassett(2010).ManagementInformationSystemsforConditionalCashTransfersandSocialProtectionSystemsinLatinAmerica:AToolforImprovedProgrammeManagementandEvidencebasedDecision-Making.SPUnit,WorldBank

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CURRICULUMOVERVIEW

TheTRANSFORMLearningPackageisorganizedinamodularstructure,andreflectsthekeybuildingblocksofaholistic&

interdependent social protection system.

TheTRANSFORMmodulesthatarecurrentlyavailablearelistedbelow.Othermodulesareunderdevelopmentandwillbeaddedtothecurriculum.

LEG Legal Frameworks

S&I Selection & Identification

ADM Administration and Delivery Systems

COO Coordination

GOV Governance, Institutions & Organizational Structure

MIS Management Information Systems & Approaches to Data Integration

FIN Financing & Financial Management

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

AllTRANSFORMmaterialsareavailableat:http://socialprotection.org/institutions/transform

656464

TRANSFORM HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AT THE REQUEST OF THE AFRICAN UNION

AN INTER-AGENCY INITIATIVE PROMOTED IN AFRICA BY

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

FUNDED BY

TRANSFORM PARTNERS

Contact theTRANSFORM initiative at: [email protected] visit http://socialprotection.org/institutions/transform

All TRANSFORM materials including this manual are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike4.0InternationalLicense.Toviewacopyofthislicense,visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/See more on cover page.

WHAT IS TRANSFORM?

TRANSFORMisaninnovativelearningpackageontheadministrationofnationalsocialprotectionfloorsinAfrica.TheprimeobjectiveofTRANSFORMistobuildcriticalthinkingandcapacitiesofpolicymakersandpractitionersatnationalanddecentralizedlevelstoimprovethedesign,effectivenessandefficiencyofsocialprotectionsystems.TRANSFORMaimsnotonlyatimpartingstate-of-the-artknowledgethatisappropriateforthechallengesfacedbycountriesintheregion,butalsotoencouragelearnerstotakeleadershiponthechangeandtransformationofnationallydefinedsocialprotectionsystems.

WHY TRANSFORM?Manytrainingcurriculaexistinthefieldofsocialprotectionandthusfundamentalideas,concepts,approachesandtechniquesareaccessible.Andyet,institutionsandindividualsstrugglewiththecomplexityofdevelopingabroad,encompassingsocialprotection system.

This complexity requires a transformational approach to teaching and knowledge sharing. It is far from enough to impartknowledge, tofillheads. It requires learners tograpplewiththe featuresofcomplexity, tostimulatecreativity, toappreciatediversityanduniqueness,tobeinvolvedasakeyelementofownership–elementswhichareatleastasimportantasthefactualknowledgeitself.Thislearningpackageaimsatjustthat:TRANSFORM!

Date post:	18-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buixuyen
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMSsocialprotection.org/sites/default/files/publications_files... · 6.1...

Documents