Social Protection

Percentage reduction in the poverty gap resulting from social assistance or social insurance transfers, a measure of the impact of these two interventions on inequality at a national level. Calculated by the World Bank in its ASPIRE database, this data are based on national representative household surveys, so when interpreting these indicators it is important to note that the extent to which information on specific transfers and programmes is captured varies significantly across countries and that household surveys do not capture the universe of social protection programmes being implemented in the country. As a consequence ASPIRE indicators are not fully comparable across country programme categories and can only provide approximate measures of impact. Also, there may be cases where ASPIRE performance indicators differ from official WB country reports as indicators are based on a first level analysis of original survey data and unified methodology that does not necessarily reflect country-specific knowledge and in depth country analysis relying on administrative program level data.

Percentage reduction in the poverty headcount at national level resulting from social assistance or social insurance transfers, using the measure of extreme poverty (

Percentage reduction in national Gini inequality index resulting from social assistance or social insurance transfers. This indicates the impact of each of these interventions on inequality at a national level. This data, calculated by the World Bank in its ASPIRE database, are based on national representative household surveys, so when interpreting these indicators it is important to note that the extent to which information on specific transfers and programmes is captured varies significantly across countries and that household surveys do not capture the universe of social protection programmes being implemented in the country. As a consequence, ASPIRE indicators are not fully comparable across country programme categories and can only provide approximate measures of impact. Also, there may be cases where ASPIRE performance indicators differ from official WB country reports as indicators are based on a first level analysis of original survey data and unified methodology that does not necessarily reflect country-specific knowledge and in depth country analysis relying on administrative program level data.

The Gini index provides a summary measure of the degree of inequality and may be calculated using either income or consumption data. It measures the extent to which the distribution of income or consumption among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. The Gini index is the Gini coefficient expressed as a percentage - ranging from 0 which represents perfect equality to 100 which implies perfect inequality. For methodology see: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI.

SDG indicator 1.2.2 foresees four alternative methodologies that can be used to monitor different aspects of multidimensional poverty: (1) Official multidimensional poverty headcount (percentage of population) - The percentage of people who are multidimensionally poor, (2) Average number of deprivations (intensity) - the average percentage of dimensions in which poor people are deprived, (3) Official multidimensional poverty headcount (percentage of total households) - the percentage of households who are multidimensionally poor, (4) Multidimensional deprivation for children (percentage of population under 18) - the percentage of children who are simultaneously deprived in multiple dimensions of wellbeing. The most commonly used method is Alkire Foster (AF) methodology which identifies dimensions, typically health, education and living standards and several indicators in each dimension. The unit of analysis could be either individual or household. The individuals or households are considered as multidimensionally poor if they are deprived in multiple indicators exceeding certain thresholds. EU countries and North Macedonia use a different approach to measure the multidimensional poverty using the concept of "people at risk of poverty or social exclusion" (AROPE). AROPE consists of three indicators, and people will be considered as "at risk of poverty or social exclusion" if they are "at risk of poverty" or "severely materially deprived" or "living in a household with a very low work intensity". The fourth alternative is to measure multidimensional deprivation for children, based on the methodology called as Multiple Overlapping Deprivation Analysis (MODA). A child is considered multidimensionally poor if s/he is simultaneously deprived in multiple dimensions. It also identifies dimensions and indicators under each dimension, and has a similar structure with the AF methodology. However, it is different in that it focuses on the life-cycle of children and creates different sets of dimensions and indicators for different age groups, for instance, 0-4, 5-11, 12-14, 15-17, and conducts analysis separately for each age group. In the global SDG database, the multidimensional poverty headcount (percentage) for overall 0-17 age range has been used. For more details on this indicator, please see https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-01-02-02.pdf.

SDG indicator 1.2.1. The national poverty rate is the percentage of the total population living below the national poverty line. The formula for calculating this rate and other details are available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-01-02-01.pdf. Disaggregation by sex, age and rural/urban location is possible – please check data availability for your country of interest.

 
One option for this would be to review the correlation between social protection provision and minimum Dietary Diversity in Women (MDD-W51). This is a dichotomous indicator indicating whether women 15–49 years of age have consumed at least five out of ten defined food groups the previous day or night. For metadata and methodology see: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5486e.pdf

One option for this would be to review whether a) social protection policies and programmes include specific nutrition targets, measures and provide data (disaggregated by sex, wealth, urban/rural) concerning adequate diets and/or minimum dietary diversity for pregnant women and children under 2 (first 1,000 days) or b) In kind transfers in the form of food assistance are fortified with micronutrients.

One option for this would be to review the inclusion of climate change mitigation indicators in programme documentation and evaluation priorities.

One option for this would be to review the extent to which public works programme policy is linked to the realisation of the national climate change strategy (mitigation and adaptation).

One option for this would be to review the frequency of interministerial meetings, creation of joint planning institutions, explicit policy linkages.

One option for this would be to review evidence of programme flexibility for informal workers such as alternative qualifying periods, frequency and variability of contributions, pension formulas.

One option for this would be to review whether shock responsive/adaptive social protection plans are under development/in place/being implemented.

One option for this would be to review the existence and functioning of financing mechanism for ASP/SRSP. For information on resource mobilisation, see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/sp-nexus/documents/span-2019-operational….

One option for this would be to review the frequency of active civil society participation in social protection implementation monitoring, in line with GPEDC indicator 2; 'Civil Society Organisations operate within an environment that maximises their engagement in and contribution to development'. For methodology prepared by OECD-UNDP see https://www.effectivecooperation.org/system/files/2020-10/Indicator2_Se….

One option for this would be to review active civil society engagement in joint planning and developing social protection implementation in line with GPEDC indicator 2; 'Civil Society Organisations operate within an environment that maximises their engagement in and contribution to development'. For methodology prepared by OECD-UNDP, see https://www.effectivecooperation.org/system/files/2020-10/Indicator2_Se….

One option for this would be to quantify and review notification and registration of personal data breaks.

Number of beneficiaries with documented verified consent divided by total number of beneficiaries.