Building Systems around the Common Targeting Mechanism in Ghana

Transcription

1 Building Systems around the Common Targeting Mechanism in Ghana With support from the Rapid Social Response Program funded by Russia, Norway and the UK

2 Multiple programs aiming to reach and support the poor LEAP (Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty) Share of outlays benefiting the poor (estimations using imputation methods) 57.5 Coverage estimates (various years ) ~70,000 HHs Targets (set by policy makers) 200,000 HHs (2016) NHIS indigent exemption >50 ~150,000 ind. 1.8 million persons Free School uniforms Labor intensive public works in poor areas National Youth Employment Program (NYEP) not known not known not known 1,260,000 ind. (over the life of the program) ~ 7,600 ind. ~110,000 ind. 1.5 million pupils Ghana School Feeding Programme <21.3 ~ 500,000 ind. - Kerosene subsidies 20.7 ~ 50% of HHs - Fertilizer subsidy scheme 15.8 ~ 16% of HHs - Electricity subsidies embedded in tariff structure (in 2005/06) Subsidies for petrol and diesel products (except kerosene) Sources: Improving the Targeting of Social Programs, World Bank 2011 Tackling Poverty in Northern Ghana, World Bank >2.3 ~ 50% of HHs na

3 Reaching the poor multiple definitions and approaches LEAP A mix of Geographic, Categorical, Community Based (CBT), and Proxy-Means-Test (PMT) Categories: OVCs, disabled, elderly NHIS exemption for indigents Very restrictive definition of indigents (no residence, no income, no other support) No clear registration procedures. Can be on demand or based on referrals. In some cases the community (representatives) may be asked to validate School Uniforms Teachers select; School Management Boards or PTAs may be involved No clear criteria, guidelines, or procedures. Not clear how the schools are selected

4 Review of approaches to beneficiaries selection School Uniforms LEAP NHIS exemptions for indigents Ministry of Education allocates school uniforms by districts Districts allocate to schools Teachers, PTAs, SMCs, select beneficiaries Ministry of Welfare select districts District Assemblies select communities Community Committees preselect beneficiaries No allocation by district District NHIS selects indigents Community representatives validate self-referrals No clear and measureable criteria; no monitoring Districts collect HH welfare indicators (PMT form) LEAP Unit assesses the HHs poverty status based on PMT formula and selects beneficiaries No clear registration procedures or enforcement of selection criteria

5 Several issues across programs Fragmentation No consistent approach or definition of poverty Multiple committees at district/ local level, in charge with allocation/ targeting decisions Low coverage or slow roll-out - the programs could not achieve the targets set by policy makers Example: the NHIS exemption for indigents Difficulties in identifying and reaching the poor Transparency and accountability Example: School Uniforms No records of beneficiaries A tracking survey in six districts found that in two of them, 40 and respectively 12 percent of uniforms could not be accounted for No grievance/ appeals mechanisms (it applies to LEAP as well) High cost of HHs targeting LEAP PMT form was lengthy (~1 hour) and inefficient

6 Common Targeting - objectives Systemic approach: 1. Synchronization across programs LEAP, Health Insurance exemptions for the poor, School Uniforms, Public Works 2. Less fragmentation From multiple committees at local level to consolidated Social Protection Committees 3. Decrease inefficiencies and increased transparency Improved targeting instruments and processes Registry/ MIS 4. Increased coverage (reduce exclusion) LEAP, NHIS

7 Roadmap Signing of MoUs between Ministries/ Agencies Agree on Common Poverty Indicators and Elaborate new PMT and data collection instruments Test PMT instruments, as well as complementary targeting methods (Geographic, Community Based Targeting and Community Validation) Agree on implementation arrangements Develop MIS/ Single registry Implementation/ Roll Out

8 Engaging Stakeholders Administrative Incentives A single registry is administratively appealing (reaching the targets) Disincentives Concerns over complex targeting procedures Financial/ Cost Economies of scale Fewer resources for individual programs Political economy Lack of transparency triggered backlash from media Lower leverage at selection stage

9 Current status o Currently adopted by two programs which have the strongest interest and incentives (LEAP and NHIS). o o Joint roll-out - registration and enrollment of additional 10,000 households in 2012 Since there is no unique ID yet, there are protocols for data sharing. o The Labor Intensive Public Works Program will use the Registry and the PMT as a verification means - to validate beneficiary selection

10 Thank You!