Results and Indicators
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Impact: To reduce poverty and inequality |
SDG 1.2.1. Proportion of population living below the national poverty line (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
Additional Information:
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. |
SDG 1.2.2. Proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Legislation/policies developed/updated with support of the EU-funded intervention. Notes from the policy development working group meetings.
Additional Information:
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.
|
|
National Gini index (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
World Bank Open Data portal, https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/
Additional Information:
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. |
|
Impact of social assistance/social insurance on poverty - Percentage reduction in national Gini inequality index resulting from social assistance or social insurance transfers
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Code of conduct developed with support of the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
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.
|
|
Impact of social assistance/social insurance on poverty headcount - percentage reduction in the poverty headcount at national level resulting from social assistance or social insurance transfers
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Percentage reduction in the poverty headcount at national level resulting from social assistance or social insurance transfers, using the measure of extreme poverty (
|
|
Impact of social assistance/social insurance on depth of poverty - percentage reduction in the poverty gap resulting from social assistance or social insurance transfers
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
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.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures implemented for all |
SDG 1.3.1. Coverage by social protection floors/systems - Proportion of population covered by at least one social protection benefit (using ILO methodology)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
This aggregate indicator reflects the percentage of the population covered by social protection floors/systems disaggregated by sex, and distinguishing children, unemployed, old age, people with disabilities, pregnant women/new-borns, work injury victims, poor and vulnerable It also reflects the main components of social protection: child and maternity benefits, support for persons without a job, persons with disabilities, victims of work injuries and older persons. It is calculated as the proportion of the total population receiving cash benefits under at least one of the contingencies (contributory or non-contributory benefit) or actively contributing to at least one social security scheme. Calculations include separate indicators in order to distinguish effective coverage for children, unemployed persons, older persons and persons with disabilities, mothers with newborns, workers protected in case of work injury, and the poor and the vulnerable. For methodology (designed by ILO), see https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-01-03-01a.pdf.
|
SDG 1.3.1. Coverage by social protection floors/systems - Proportion of children/households receiving child/family cash benefit (using ILO methodology)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Sub-component of SDG indicator 1.3.1. For methodology (designed by ILO), see: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-01-03-01a.pdf.
|
|
SDG 1.3.1. Coverage by social protection floors/systems -Proportion of women giving birth covered by maternity benefits (using ILO methodology)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Sub-component of SDG indicator 1.3.1, following ILO methodology. Ratio of women receiving cash maternity benefits to women giving birth in the same year, estimated based on age-specific fertility rates published in the UN’s World Population Prospects or on the number of live births corrected for the share of twin and triplet births. For methodology (designed by ILO), see: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-01-03-01a.pdf.
|
|
SDG 1.3.1. Coverage by social protection floors/systems -Proportion of persons with disabilities receiving benefits (using ILO methodology)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Sub-component of SDG indicator 1.3.1, following ILO methodology. Ratio of persons receiving disability cash benefits to persons with severe disabilities, calculated as the product of prevalence of disability ratios (published for each country group by the World Health Organization) and each country’s population. For methodology (designed by ILO), see: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-01-03-01a.pdf.
|
|
SDG 1.3.1. Coverage by social protection floors/systems -Proportion of unemployed receiving benefits (using ILO methodology)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Database of participants, pre- and post-intervention tests/surveys
Additional Information:
Sub-component of SDG indicator 1.3.1, following ILO methodology. Ratio of recipients of unemployment cash benefits to the number of unemployed persons. For methodology (designed by ILO), see: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-01-03-0
|
|
SDG 1.3.1. Coverage by social protection floors/systems -Proportion of workers covered in case of employment injury (using ILO methodology)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Code of conduct developed with support of the EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
Sub-component of SDG indicator 1.3.1, following ILO methodology. Ratio of workers protected by injury insurance to total employment or the labour force. For methodology (designed by ILO), see: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-01-03-01a.pdf.
|
|
SDG 1.3.1. Coverage by social protection floors/systems -Proportion of older persons receiving a pension (using ILO methodology)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Sub-component of SDG indicator 1.3.1, following ILO methodology. Ratio of persons above statutory retirement age receiving an old-age pension to persons above statutory retirement age (including contributory and non-contributory). For methodology (designed by ILO), see: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-01-03-01a.pdf.
|
|
SDG 1.3.1. Coverage by social protection floors/systems -Proportion of vulnerable persons receiving benefits (using ILO methodology)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Surveys commissioned by EU-funded intervention (at the beginning and end of intervention)Â
Additional Information:
Sub-component of SDG indicator 1.3.1, following ILO methodology. Ratio of social assistance recipients to the total number of vulnerable persons, calculated by subtracting from total population all people of working age who are contributing to a social insurance scheme or receiving contributory benefits, and all persons above retirement age receiving contributory benefits. For methodology (designed by ILO), see: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-01-03-01a.pdf.
|
|
SDG 1.3.1. Coverage by social protection floors/systems -Proportion of population covered by social assistance programs (using WB methodology)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Progress reports, surveys commissioned by EU-funded interventionÂ
Additional Information:
Â
Sub-component of SDG indicator 1.3.1, following World Bank methodology. Coverage of social assistance is the percentage of population benefitting from social assistance / social safety nets. Coverage = Number of beneficiaries in the total population (or group) / Total population (or group). Disaggregation would be possible by sex, age group, income quintiles.
Similar data is also available for persons participating in social insurance as well as unemployment benefits and active labour market programs). Estimates include both direct and indirect beneficiaries. The World Bank ASPIRE indicators do not include (in the current edition) those who are protected by law, or those who have benefits guaranteed but are not necessarily receiving them at the time the survey is administered – for example people who actively contribute to old age pensions and are entitled to the benefits on reaching retirement age. For more information on the World Bank methodology for this indicator, please see: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-01-03-01b.pdf"
|
|
SDG 1.3.1. Coverage by social protection floors/systems -Proportion of population covered by social insurance programs (using WB methodology)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Database of training participants; pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
Sub-component of SDG indicator 1.3.1, following World Bank methodology. It represents the percentage of population participating in social insurance. Coverage = Number of beneficiaries in the total population (or group) / Total population (or group). Disaggregation would be possible by sex, age group, income quintiles. Similar data is also available for persons participating in social assistance/social safety net, as well as unemployment benefits and active labour market programs). Estimates include both direct and indirect beneficiaries. The World Bank ASPIRE indicators do not include (in the current edition) those who are protected by law, or those who have benefits guaranteed but are not necessarily receiving them at the time the survey is administered – for example people who actively contribute to old age pensions and are entitled to the benefits on reaching retirement age. For more information on the World Bank methodology for this SDG indicator, please see: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-01-03-01b.pdf
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Increasingly efficient, effective and fair social protection financing and spending |
SDG 10.4.2. The redistributive impact of fiscal policy
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments conducted by the EU-funded intervention, government and civil society reports
Additional Information:
SDG indicator 10.4.2. The redistributive impact of fiscal policy indicator - the difference between the pre-fiscal and post-fiscal income inequality, calculated using the Gini coefficient of prefiscal per capita (or equivalized) income less the Gini coefficient of postfiscal per capita (or equivalized) income. This indicator demonstrates the total amount by which current inequality is reduced or increased by the current execution of fiscal policy (including direct and indirect taxes; social insurance and old-age pension contributions; direct cash or near-cash transfers; and subsidies). Please check data availability for your country of interest before using this indicator. For methodology, see https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-10-04-02.pdf.
|
SDG 1.a.2. Annual government social protection expenditure as a percentage of total government expenditure on all sectors
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
SDG indicator 1.a.2. Total general (local, regional and central) government expenditure on social protection, including social insurance, expressed as a percentage of total general government expenditure on all sectors (including health, education, social services, etc.). This includes expenditure funded by transfers from international sources to the government. This is a sub component of SDG indicator 1.a.2 which aggregates spending on education, health and social protection. The social protection component of 1.a.2 does not yet have meta-data (this is only available for education) as of October 2020, so the EU-funded intervention would need to conduct baseline and endline studies in order to collect primary data. Contributory social insurance should be included in such studies.
|
|
Social protection expenditure as percentage of GDP (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
ILO, World Social Protection Data Dashboards, https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/WSPDB.action?id=40. Baseline and endline studies to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention.
Additional Information:
This may be drawn from the ILO database or if not available for the requisite years, calculated directly by the EU-funded intervention. Government expenditure on social protection: includes expenditure on services and transfers provided to individual persons and households and expenditure on services provided on a collective basis. This data EXCLUDES expenditure for health. |
|
Expenditure on health care as % of GDP
(Percentage)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
This may be drawn from the ILO database or if not available for the requisite years, calculated directly by the EU-funded intervention. Expenditure on healthcare: public sources include domestic revenue as internal transfers and grants, transfers, subsidies to voluntary health insurance beneficiaries, NPISH or enterprise financing schemes as well as compulsory prepayment and social health insurance contributions. All these transfers and subsidies represent public sources for health and indicate the overall share of government funding for health
|
|
Annual social assistance spending as a percentage of GDP
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Total public expenditure on social assistance as a percentage of GDP - in aggregate and broken down by conditional and unconditional cash transfers, social pensions, school feeding, public works, food and in kind, fee waivers and other social assistance, but excluding social insurance. This indicator is provided in the World Bank's ASPIRE database and includes spending data for 125 countries. For more detail on data sources and methodology, please see: https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/datatopics/aspire/documentation.
|
|
Annual actual social protection expenditure as percentage of social protection budget (excluding health) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Actual social protection expenditure as a percentage of budgeted social protection expenditure. This should include data on both contributory social insurance (available in the ILO SSE dbase) as well as social assistance, but not include health expenditure. Calculation of this indicator will be simplified when meta-data for social protection expenditure is provided under SDG indicator 1.a.2 (proportion of total government spending on essential services including social protection). |
|
Ratio of domestic resources (disaggregated by social protection contributions and state budget) and external funding for social protection
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments conducted by the EU-funded intervention, government and civil society reports
Additional Information:
Domestic resources as a percentage of total (domestic plus external) allocations to social protection. This analysis should include data on both contributory social insurance as well as social assistance, but not health expenditure, and should ensure a consistent position is taken on the characterisation of external funding (grants, concessionary loans, budget support etc.). Calculation of this indicator will be simplified when meta-data for social protection expenditure is available under SDG indicator 1.a.2 (proportion of total government spending on essential services including social protection).
|
|
Social assistance (non-contributory) expenditure as a percentage of social protection expenditure
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Meeting minutes, progress reports
Additional Information:
Expenditure on social assistance as a percentage of total social protection expenditure. This analysis should include data on both contributory social insurance as well as social assistance, but not health expenditure. The EU-funded intervention would need to conduct baseline and endline studies in order to collect primary data on government and external allocations. Calculation of this indicator will be simplified when meta-data for social protection expenditure is provided under SDG indicator 1.a.2 (proportion of total government spending on essential services including social protection).
|
|
Total cost of transfer ratio (TCTR): Percentage of delivery costs to overall transfer costs within social protection programmes
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Assessment reports
Additional Information:
The total cost-transfer ratio (TCTR) is the ratio of total programme cost to value of transfers is a measure of cost-efficiency. It illustrates the total cost, including transfers, of delivering one unit of transfer to a beneficiary. The more TCTR exceeds unity, the less cost-efficient the programme is. The reciprocal of the TCTR may also be used, the alpha ratio (α). This is the ratio of the value of transfers to total (administrative and transfer) costs. Cost-efficiency declines as α falls below unity. The advantage of the TCTR is that it is not only easy to interpret conceptually, and it allows both the cost of transfers to programmes and their value to recipients (expressed in money terms) to be taken into account. For more detail, see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uplo….
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Legal and policy frameworks for social protection based on pro-poor and gender-and disability-sensitive development strategies designed and enforced |
Extent to which the national social protection strategy and policy in place is accompanied by associated institutional structures
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
|
Extent to which social protection provision has legislative basis
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which social protection legal, policy and strategic frameworks are implemented
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which national social protection sector policy is based on pro-poor and gender-and disability-sensitive principles
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU-funded intervention indicators, progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
SDG 1.b.1. Pro-poor social spending - Percentage of pro-poor public social assistance spending by government (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database
Additional Information:
Sub-component of SDG indicator 1.b.1, included during the 2020 comprehensive review of SDG indicators. The SDG indicator 1.b.1 on pro-poor social spending (the proportion of government spending towards health and education and direct transfers which benefit directly the monetary poor) provides an estimate of how well public resources are allocated to sectors which disproportionally benefit the poor. This sub-indicator is calculated as the percentage of government spending on cash transfers and 'near cash transfers' (e.g. school feeding programmes etc.) which directly benefit the monetary poor - using national definition of income or consumption poverty as in SDG indicator 1.2.1. If the proportion of public spending received by the poor exceeds (falls below) the proportion of poor as defined by national definitions, public expenditures can be interpreted as pro-poor (not pro-poor). The EU-funded intervention would need to disaggregate the social assistance component of indicator 1.b.1. As of 2021, the indicator data is available in 66 countries - please check data availability for your country of interest before using this indicator. For methodology, see: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-01-0b-01.pdf. |
|
Extent to which sex-disaggregated data and qualitative information on gender and disability sensitivity are publicly available for national social protection programmes
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Adequate social protection benefits (in cash, in kind, as service) provided |
Impact of receipt of social assistance and social insurance transfers (excluding contributory pensions) on headcount poverty among recipients (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Percentage change in the number of people living below a given poverty line as the result of transfer receipt, calculated by comparing beneficiaries' poverty headcount ratio before and after transfer receipt. |
Impact of receipt of social assistance and social insurance transfers (excluding contributory pensions) on depth of poverty among recipients
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Percentage change in mean poverty gap experienced among recipient households pre and post transfer receipt, with the poverty gap defined as the mean shortfall in income for the population, from the poverty line.
|
|
Impact of receipt of social assistance and social insurance transfers (excluding contributory pensions) on the severity of poverty among recipients
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Database of beneficiaries
Additional Information:
Percentage change in the severity of poverty experienced by recipient households pre and post transfer receipt, with the severity of poverty measured by calculating the square of the poverty gap index, which puts more weight on the poverty of the very poor.
|
|
Percentage change in benefit generosity
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Assessment reports
Additional Information:
Social protection expenditure per potential beneficiary as % of per capita poverty line, as calculated in the ‘Social Protection Indicator’ (SPI, formerly known as Social Protection Index). SPI is calculated by dividing total social protection expenditures per total reference population, by a regional poverty line. The term in the numerator, “total social protection expenditures per total reference population,†can be disaggregated into two multiplicative components: (Total expenditures/Total beneficiaries) x (Total beneficiaries/Total reference population). The first component, “total expenditures/total beneficiaries,†denotes the depth of coverage while the second, “total beneficiaries/total reference population,†denotes the breadth of provision. The index can be disaggregated or decomposed in different ways, such as by depth and breadth of coverage; by category, including social insurance, social assistance, and labour market; by poor and non-poor beneficiaries; and by gender. The term in the numerator, “total social protection expenditures per total reference population,†can be disaggregated into two multiplicative components: (Total expenditures/Total beneficiaries) x (Total beneficiaries/Total reference population). The first component, “total expenditures/total beneficiaries,†denotes the depth of coverage while the second, “total beneficiaries/total reference population,†denotes the breadth of provision. SPI have been calculated by the Asian Development Bank for countries in the region from 2001-2015 only, see database https://data.adb.org/dataset/asian-development-bank-social-protection-i…. For methodology see: https://think-asia.org/bitstream/handle/11540/6266/9789290924968_The%20….
|
|
Average value of benefit in cash per recipient as a proportion of the national poverty line by programme
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Mean monthly programme cash transfer amount (or monetised market value of in-kind transfers) as % of household poverty line.
|
|
Proportion of transfers delivered within timeline set out in operational manual
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Agency / INGO / NGO project documentation; - Donor organisations interviews.
Additional Information:
Percentage of social protection transfers paid within the period stipulated in programme operational manual.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Harmonisation and standardisation of social protection provision, moving from selective, short-term safety nets to comprehensive systems (Social Protection Floors) |
Extent to which the total number of discrete donor and government social protection programmes is reducing while overall coverage increases
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Agency / INGO / NGO project documentation; - Donor organisations interviews.
Additional Information:
One option for this would be to create an index of total coverage divided by the number of discrete social protection programmes.
|
Extent to which mechanisms are in place to enhance policy coherence of interventions in social protection
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EU intervention monitoring and reporting systems (Progress and final reports for the EU-funded intervention; EU-funded feasibility or appraisal reports ; Baseline and endline studies conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention )
Additional Information:
One option for this would be to assess whether there is a national institution mandated to perform this function.
|
|
Extent to which the government national registry and Management Information System (MIS) results in harmonised provision of social protection (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
One option for this would be to assess the use of national registry for social protection claim appraisal, decision-making, response and delivery. |
|
Extent to which the Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) system for social protection is results-based, gender- and nutrition-sensitive
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
One option for this would be to review M&E documentation to assess inclusion and operationalisation of results-based, gender- and nutrition-sensitive orientation (including TOR, indicators and evaluations).
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Enhanced effectiveness of social protection systems and provision through adoption of digital technologies |
Percentage of individuals with processable data records registered in the national registry for social benefits
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
The definition of 'processable' information will have to be determined in the local context.
|
Percentage of benefits managed and monitored through digital systems (disaggregated by type of benefit: social assistance and social insurance) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Total number of beneficiaries processed through digital systems, as a proportion of all beneficiaries processed through digital and manual systems, by type of benefit (social assistance and social insurance). |
|
Percentage of beneficiaries' meta-data shared with at least one other social sector database (i.e. health, education)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Studies commissioned by EU-funded intervention (at the beginning and end of the intervention)Â
Additional Information:
Total number of beneficiaries for whom meta-data is shared across databases as a proportion of all beneficiaries (may be calculated by programme, by type (social assistance and social insurance) or system wide.
|
|
Percentage of benefits delivered through non-cash channels (ATMs, mobile money, banks) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Total number of beneficiaries paid through non-cash channels as a proportion of all beneficiaries (may be calculated by programme, by type (contributory or non contributory) or system wide. |
|
Extent to which complaints and appeals are registered in the Management Information System
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Policy dialogue reports
Additional Information:
One option for this would be to carry out assessments at single and multiple programme systems levels.
|
|
Extent to which the sector-specific privacy and data protection policies and instruments are based on national, regional, global legal frameworks
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Database of participants
Additional Information:
One option for this would be to review data protection policies for compliance with national and international standards.
|
|
Percentage of social protection beneficiaries that have explicitly given consent to the processing of their personal data
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Number of beneficiaries with documented verified consent divided by total number of beneficiaries.
|
|
Extent to which personal data breaks are notified and registered
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Conflict analyses and conflict sensitivity assessment reports
Additional Information:
One option for this would be to quantify and review notification and registration of personal data breaks.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Increased participationof civil society and social partners with the state to develop social protection systems and monitor performance |
Extent to which civil society and other partners participate in the planning of social protection provision (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
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_Self-Reflection%20Guide.pdf. |
Extent to which civil society and other partners participate in monitoring the implementation of social protection provision
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
Additional Information:
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….
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Adaptive/shock responsive social protection systems (ASP/SRSP) developed that can be rapidly scaled up to address recurrent natural disasters and/or can function in fragile states and post-conflict situations |
Extent to which a mechanism is in place for rapid resource mobilisation/release of contingency funds to scale up provision at time of shock (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
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-note-5-integrated-financing. |
Extent of use of social protection systems and instruments to prepare for and deliver shock responses
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
World Bank, ASPIRE Database, https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/datatopics/aspire
Additional Information:
One option for this would be to review whether shock responsive/adaptive social protection plans are under development/in place/being implemented.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Social protection is extended to difficult to reach target groups, including people in urban settings, those in the informal economy, migrants and displaced people and other specific target groups |
Percentage of migrants and forcibly displaced persons (refugees and IDPs) receiving at least one social protection benefit, disaggregated by sex and migration status (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
Percentage of workers in the informal economy receiving at least one social protection benefit, disaggregated by sex (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which social insurance programmes offer flexible terms and conditions for informal workers
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
World Bank, ASPIRE Database, https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/datatopics/aspire
Additional Information:
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.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Social protection promotes structural transformation towards greener economies and societies, actively addressing climate change |
Extent of collaboration between the ministries responsible for social protection, for environment and for finance on design and implementation of social protection that contributes to the national climate change strategy
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
World Bank, ASPIRE Database, https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/datatopics/aspire
Additional Information:
One option for this would be to review the frequency of interministerial meetings, creation of joint planning institutions, explicit policy linkages.
|
Extent to which public works programmes directly mitigate the effects of climate change and shocks
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
Additional Information:
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).
|
|
Extent to which social protection monitoring and evaluation activity provide evidence of climate change mitigation/green economy impact (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
One option for this would be to review the inclusion of climate change mitigation indicators in programme documentation and evaluation priorities. |
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Social protection policies and instruments become nutrition-sensitive |
Extent to which social protection policies and instruments show explicit links to nutrition and food security (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
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. |
Extent to which social protection interventions contribute to the achievement of nutrition and food security objectives
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. The main data source is the Social Security Inquiry (SSI)
Additional Information:
Â
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
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: 1. Strengthened advocacy for an extended, more inclusive and better financed social protection system |
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention contributed to the formulation and implementation of advocacy plan for social protection system development, in coordination with other development partners
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. The main data source is the Social Security Inquiry (SSI)
Additional Information:
|
Number of government and civil society participants trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their understanding of the potential benefit of an extended, more inclusive and better financed social protection system, disaggregated by sex and sector
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. The main data source is the Social Security Inquiry (SSI)
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention supported effective civil society advocacy promoting the expansion of the social protection system (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: 15. Public awareness raised about e-services relevant for social protection benefit application and delivery |
Number of people reached through awareness raising campaigns, implemented with support of the EU-funded intervention, about e-services for social protection benefit application and delivery
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. The main data source is the Social Security Inquiry (SSI)
Additional Information:
|
Percentage of people from the social protection target groups aware of e-services relevant for benefit application and delivery, disaggregated by sex, age, income quantile, employment status, migration status and disability status (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of government initiatives funded by the EU to increase public awareness about the advantages and challenges related to the delivery and access to social protection via e-services
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. The main data source is the Social Security Inquiry (SSI)
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: 14. Strengthened advocacy to eliminate barriers for access to rights and services |
Number of government officials and civil society participants trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their understanding of multiple barriers to accessing social protection services, disaggregated by sex and sector.
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. The main data source is the Social Security Inquiry (SSI)
Additional Information:
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention contributed to extend/maintain the inclusivity of national social protection strategy and delivery mechanisms (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: 13. Increased opportunities for dialogue between civil society and social partners with the government on the design and performance of social protection systems |
Number of agencies/parties participating in multi-stakeholder meetings/conferences/forums organised by the EU-funded intervention on the design and performance of social protection systems, disaggregated by sector (public; social partners, civil society and private sector)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. The main data source is the Social Security Inquiry (SSI)
Additional Information:
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention supported the development of civil society inputs to revisions to social protection design and implementation (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: 12. Increased knowledge of effective strategies for integrating nutrition, climate change, urban settings, ... |
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention supported the piloting of different options to integrate nutrition, climate change, urban settings, economic resilience, e-services, gender and pro-poor focus into social protection design and delivery in the local context (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
Number of policy makers trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge and/or skills for integrating nutrition, climate change, urban settings, economic resilience, e-services, gender and pro-poor focus into social protection design and delivery based on local pilots
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. The main data source is the ASPIRE database
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: 11. Strengthened government and civil society capacities for using social protection to promote a greener economy and society and address climate change |
Number of participants trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of social protection programmes linked to green economy and climate change, disaggregated by sex and age
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/. The main data source is the ASPIRE database
Additional Information:
|
Number of people benefitting from EU-funded social protection programmes that mitigate risks related to climate change and support a greener economy, disaggregated by sex, age
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Global SDG Indicators Database https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of civil society organisations participating in the formulation of social protection programmes covering climate-related risk and supporting a greener economy with support from the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention supported the integration of national climate change objectives in the national Social Protection policy (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: 10. Strengthened policy markers’ capacities for inclusion of people in urban settings and in the informal economy in the social protection policies and delivery |
Number of policy makers trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of approaches for including informal workers in social protection policies and implementation practices, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
ILO, World Social Protection Data Dashboards, https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/WSPDB.action?id=40. Baseline and endline studies to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention.
Additional Information:
|
Number of policy makers trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of approaches for including urban populations in social protection policies and implementation practices, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
World Bank, ASPIRE Database, https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/datatopics/aspire
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention contributed to the development/revision of social protection policy and implementation practices to ensure the inclusion of workers in informal employment (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention contributed to the development/revision of social protection policy and implementation practices to ensure the inclusion of urban populations (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: 9. Strengthened policy markers’ capacities for inclusion of migrants, refugees and internally displaced people in the social protection policies and delivery |
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention supported the integration of migrants, refugees and the internally displaced into social protection policy (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
Extent to which EU-funded pilots promote the integration of/parallel support for migrants, refugees and the internally displaced into the social protection system
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Improved awareness of policy makers on good practices for promoting shock responsive/adaptive social protection systems |
Number of policy makers trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of good practices for promoting shock sensitive and/or adaptive social protection systems, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention provided inputs for the incorporation of shock sensitive and/or adaptive social protection into the national strategy
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention established/reinforced coordination mechanisms between development and humanitarian actors in both humanitarian and development interventions (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: 7. Improved coordination and harmonisation at government and donor levels on social protection programming and delivery |
Frequency of coordination meetings on social protection programming and delivery between the government and donor community including EU
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention strengthened mechanisms for donor-government coordination in the social protection
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention strengthened mechanisms for intra-government coordination in the social protection sector
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of joint activities, including evaluations of social protection programming and delivery and sector reviews, with bilateral partners and international organisations, conducted with support from the EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: 6. Enhanced access to digital application and data protection measures for improving (inter)operability and security of social information systems |
Extent to which EU supported pilots explore options for digital applications relating to enrolment, payments and monitoring
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention proposes digital solutions for improving the interoperability of key social protection programmes, processes and information systems and the convergence with the other social sectors´ digital frameworks (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention supported the integration of privacy and data protection rules of applicable regulatory frameworks for social protection registration and delivery
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: 5. Improved gathering and analysis of data on the social protection system, the programmes and/or instruments of delivery |
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention maintained/improved the social protection sector registry (e.g. scale of coverage, quality and completeness of data records, frequency of updating)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention maintained/improved the completeness and quality of data of the Management and Information System(s)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention supported the government systems for providing timely, robust and integrated data on social protection sector performance (across multiple programmes) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: 4. Improved availability of information on gaps and overlap in social protection policy and delivery |
Extent to which data on the distribution and depth of poverty and vulnerability is collected, updated and made available, with support of the EU-funded intervention
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies to be conducted and budgeted by the EU-funded intervention
Additional Information:
Timely data is sufficiently recent that it accurately reflect current needs and is provided in a time frame that enables it to be used to inform decision making. Dynamic data is periodically updated, changing over time as new information becomes available. Robust data is credible and reliable, and its construction and provenance is explicit and transparent. Systematic means done according to a fixed plan or system.
|
Extent to which government coordination mechanisms for social protection provision are able to provide complete and recent information data on legal and effective policy and programme coverage and overlaps, with support of the EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Extent to which the EU-funded intervention supported the integration of data on donor activities in the social protection sector into government planning
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Government administrative data
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: 3. Strengthened awareness of policy makers and/or MPs on sustainable financing and Public Finance Management (PFM) strategies in the field of social protection |
Number of government representatives trained by the EU-funded intervention who increased their knowledge of sustainable financing and Public Finance Management (PFM) strategies in the field of social protection
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Government administrative data
Additional Information:
|
Extent to which policy makers’ activities for improving fiscal space/budget allocation spending efficiency and/or multi-annual budgeting in social protection, are supported by the EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|