DIAGNOSTIC STUDY ON OLD AGE ALLOWANCE (OAA) AND HUSBAND DESERTED DESTITUTE WOMEN AND WIDOW ALLOWANCE (HDDWW) Presentation of key findings and recommendations
Outline • Objective of the diagnostic study • Key findings • Strategic implications and considerations • Recommendations
OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
4
Major Objective • Operational and Financial Analysis • Design, Product Features and Implementation (Book V/s Field) • Greater efficiencies in terms of targeting, enrolment and allocating resources, improving compliance of guidelines and procedures. • Suggest Recommendations • Improving upon the efficiency, economy and cost effectiveness of its operations • Providing stability and sustainability and Promoting value for money • Focus on Strengthening • Supply Side (PFM), Institutional Design and Delivery • Demand Side (Beneficiaries) Empowerment and Convenience on Receiving Benefits
Methodology • Methodology Adopted • Primary Sources • Discussions with MoSW, DSS, FD, DFID, UNDP, Banks, Post Offices, MJF, Visit to 4 Upazilas, 4 Unions in 2 Districts • Meetings with VGD Committees at 2 Districts, 4 Upazila and 4 Unions • Beneficiaries and Non Beneficiaries • Secondary Sources • Review of Reports, Past Studies, Guidelines, Implementation
Manual etc. • Budgetary Documents and MTBF • HIES analysis
KEY FINDINGS
Beneficiary Life Cycle Grievance Process Grievance
Application
Selection
Monitoring
Payment
Deregistering
Coverage and Transfer Size • Coverage is low: • OAA allocation would cover 38% of eligible beneficiaries by age • HDDWW covers only 10% of potentially eligible beneficiaries • Effective coverage is lower because of inclusion errors • Eligibility is overlapping: • Widowed/deserted women over age 62 are potentially eligible for both programmes • Both OAA and HDDWW highly rationed, so lack of clarity over which eligibility should prevail • Transfer size is small and the value depreciates
Targeting: OAA • 31% of OAA beneficiaries are ineligible by age: • This means that in actual practice only 26% of eligible by age receive OAA benefits • Half of these mis-targeted by age are near age threshold (60-64) • BUT, of the ineligible, still tends to pick up the very
poorest and / or disabled
20% of beneficiaries are non-poor
Targeting: HDDWW • Targeting errors for HDDWW are higher than that of OAA: • 36% of beneficiaries not eligible on grounds of widowhood and/or socioeconomic categories (income, etc) • 22% of beneficiaries are not widows / husband deserted
35% of beneficiaries are non-poor
Targeting: identifying bottlenecks • Targeting issues come at two stages: • Initial beneficiary selection • Recertification (or lack thereof) to identify death of beneficiary/remarriage/graduation of beneficiary • Currently no hard evidence on how much each aspect
contributes to overall errors, but clearly both need to be addressed
Payments • Payments through banks impose burden on beneficiaries
(long distance, travel cost) • Beneficiaries have no option to select any particular mode of receiving benefits (Mobile banking, postal, mobile money) • Beneficiaries are not allowed to use their bank accounts for purpose other than withdrawing the benefits. • Pilots offer significant promise, there are challenges identified by a2i, such as: • There is insufficient DSS field staff dedicated to these two schemes • Need to ensure new options do not exclude disabled/vulnerable in
terms of accessibility
Programme Management • Inadequate Staff for Management • Staffing levels for DSS Social Services Officers are the same as in 1984, before these two programmes were introduced • Scale-up in beneficiaries in last decade has severely strained resources • Many posts are vacant, further adding to strain • SSOs have many responsibilities aside from OAA and HDDWW • Program is currently managed with little application of IT • • • •
system including MIS No digitization of beneficiary data and hence lack of validations of data Little use of technology in transferring benefits Inadequate monitoring Inadequate operational budgets • Travel allowance or vehicle (bicycle, motorcycle, etc) and fuel • Office expenses
Public Financial Management • Budgets do not explicitly recognise programme
administrative costs • There are, of course, administrative costs incurred by the programmes • Staff time (salary) • Field office functioning • Transfer costs: currently hidden • Banks incur costs to deliver but GoB not charged • Government faces opportunity cost from this payment strategy (cost of
borrowing)
Value for Money: background
Cheapest not always best: • Efficiency/effectiveness trade-offs • Reaching the poorest may be more expensive than reaching non-poor
Value for Money • Administration of OAA & HDDWW are cost efficient, with
very low total cost / transfer ratios • BUT … • …This comes at a cost in terms of effectiveness • Mis-targeting • Inability to address ‘ghost’ beneficiaries or graduation • Inability to monitor payments
PFM: findings POLICY-BASED BUDGETING POLICY-BASED BUDGETING
1. Problem identification
There is almost no evaluation data to serve as basis for understanding impact on poverty and subsequent adjustments to programme design and targeting.
Need to better integrate NSSS priorities around consolidation of schemes, especially related to widows and destitute women
POLICY CYCLE
7. Evaluation
2. Policy formulation 3. Planning and budget preparation
INTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Although the MTBF process does encourage/require some discussion of previous year out-turns and next year budget planning to ensure efficiency, the quality of the value for money discussion is largely lacking.
6. Monitoring & reporting CONTROL
There is very little in-year reporting to monitor transfer uptake
BUDGET CYCLE
POLICY-BASED BUDGETING Increases in the budget ceiling (for both beneficiary numbers and transfer values) are in line with stated policy commitments to expand the programmes, but appear to be made on a fairly ad-hoc basis.
PFM OUT-TURNS
CROSS-CUTTING: COMPREHENSIVENESS Transparency about administrative cost drivers is lacking.
5. Implementation
4. Budget approval POLICY-BASED BUDGETING There is no evidence or discussion about the scale and cost of administrative resources required to effectively implement the programme.
STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS
Solutions depend on Strategic Vision OAA Coverage Universal / Category
Targeting Progressive expansion by age Could be combined with geographic scale-up
Recertification Life certification process: combination of biometric/automatic and manual
OR Proxy Means Test (using national single registry)
Life certification process: combination of biometric/automatic and manual
Poverty Targeted
OR Keep existing approach but refine guidelines, monitor implementation more closely
PLUS Poverty re-certification periodically
Solutions depend on Strategic Vision HDDWW Coverage Consolidate with universal OAA and Vulnerable Women’s Benefit
OR
Keep programme definitions as is
Targeting
Recertification
All over age 62 are part of OAA Working-age women eligible for VWB (IGA-type, perhaps consolidated with VGD)
Life certification process: combination of biometric/automatic and manual
Proxy Means Test (using national single registry) with proof of widohood/abandonment
Life certification process: combination of biometric/automatic and manual
OR Keep existing approach but refine guidelines, monitor implementation more closely
PLUS Poverty re-certification periodically
All approaches require more investment in systems • Technical reforms (National ID, national registry, biometrics at
payment, etc) will provide some solutions, but are not the only answer • Cannot be fully functional without proper staffing levels and related
inputs • Universal approaches less HR-intensive, but nevertheless still
require robust system for implementation • Clear efficiency/effectiveness trade-offs to be managed: • What is the level of admin staff needed to ensure targeting/selection is
without leakage, and that eligible are not discouraged from uptake? • What staffing resources are required for re-certification? • What staffing is needed for routine monitoring? • What equipment and non-salary costs are required (e.g. IT, fuel, vehicles, travel allowance, etc)?
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations • Coverage: • Progressive shift towards universalisation of OAA • Scale-up slowly, focus first on poorest upazillas
• HDDWW would then only cover eligible women below 62 • Focus could be more on IGA/Asset transfer/Skills type programmes such as ICVGD with short-term income support cash transfer • As envisaged in NSSS – a Vulnerable Women’s Benefit, consolidated with VGD
• Transfer size: • Increase transfer size and link to inflation – system should be in place for periodic review to ensure ongoing effectiveness in poverty reduction • Targeting: • Shift to universalisation would address most targeting issues • Strengthening recertification • Use of technology (beneficiary data digitisation, use of NID, biometrics) • Payments • Beneficiaries be provided with multiple options for receiving benefits (banking, mobile banking, mobile financial services, Post Office, etc) • Direct payment to beneficiaries (G2P)
Recommendations • Use costed reform exercise to assess costs and benefits
of these options for decision-making • Including budget implications of different scale-up options
• Reform options need to include systems development
required for successful implementation • Technological: including MIS monitoring • Administrative management
• Value for money considerations should be incorporated
throughout decision-making processes (input into Social Protection Committee budget ceiling setting, MTBF, more in-year reporting on costs, beneficiaries, etc).