In a computerised environment, ‘databases’ and ‘registries’ are overlapping concepts (effectively synonyms); both are for storing and retrieving data and therefore act as ‘data repositories’ When discussing integrated data repositories we retain the word ‘registry’ as this is most commonly used. MIS — a system that transforms retrieved data from a program’s database/register (or, in some different databases linked to different modules) into information that can be used for efficient and effective program management. In social protection literature, the term MIS is associated with program-level information management. When discussing integrated solutions we use the generic term ‘application software’, referring to the tailored solution that allows for the input, processing and output (e.g. display/presentation) of information. In the literature this is sometimes referred to as ‘integrated MIS’. The way in which these building blocks are operationalised in country will influence the system’s overall functionality, level of dynamism and level of integration, ultimately affecting the extent to which the benefits of integration discussed in can be achieved in practice. Table 2 provides a few examples — which should be kept in mind throughout this report — in Table 2 below. 2 How variations in operationalisation can affect outcomes Variations in operationalisation that will affect outcomes (examples) See section(s) Registry/ database What percentage of population is in the registry 2.4, 3.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.7 Whose data is in the registry (e.g. beneficiary vs potentially eligible) 4.2.1 What data is being collected and stored (e.g. what variables) 4.2.1 How data is being collected 4.2.1 How data is being updated 4.2.2 What data sources are being used and how 2.5, 4.2.1 Application software (and procedures for data sharing) How data is managed and used 2.5, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 4.2.6 Whether data exchange is real time or not 2.5, 4.3.4 Opportunities for data access at decentralised level and for external stakeholders (accessibility) 4.1.1,4.1.2, 4.3.4 Level of security/data privacy guaranteed 4.3.1
Stakeholder Advantages of data flow from social registry to (…) Advantages of data flow to social registry from (…) National social protection programs Programs can use data from the registry (and potentially national poverty index) to select their beneficiaries Programs can benefit from further data integration established at national level (e.g. verifying data with civil registry) Programs can be given access to integrated M&E information Potential for integrating services across programs Registry continuously updated Being able to keep track of who receives what Integrated M&E across programs Potential for integrating services across programs registry and/or national ID number (see also Section 4.2.4) Data collection effort for registry could help identify and register unregistered individuals National ID number acts as unique identifier and enables instant linkage with other government databases Civil registry or National ID data can be used as an information base on all citizens (e.g. name, address), including notification of births and deaths Authentication of registry data Bank or other payment institution Potential for coordinating payments across different programs (economies of Payment authentication and reconciliation across programs Tax authority Tax authority could benefit from better understanding of poverty and social protection receipt Tax data can be (e.g. to aid eligibility decisions and prevent fraud) Social security database Better integration, coordination and planning across social protection and social insurance Development of complementary packages targeted at social protection beneficiaries (primarily health Insurance) Social security data can be cross-checked (e.g. employment status and social insurance receipt to aid eligibility decisions and prevent fraud) Better integration, coordination and planning across social protection and social insurance checked cross-
Argentina, Single Database for Social Security (BUSS) Belize, Single Identification System of Beneficiaries (SISB) Bolivia, Beneficiary Registry of Social Programs Brazil, Cadastro Único Chile, Social Registry of Households (RSH) Colombia, Integrated Information System of Social Protection (SISPRO) Costa Rica, Sistema de Identificación de la Población Objectivo (SIPO) Dominican Republic, Sistema de Beneficiaros (SIUBEN) Ecuador, Social Registry and Registry of Social Programs (RIPS) Guatemala, Registro Único de Usuarios Nacional (RUU-N) Honduras, Unique Registry of Participants (RUP) Jamaica, Beneficiary Management Information System Mexico, Cuestionario Único de Información Socioeconómica Cabo Verde, Unique Registry Kenya, Single Registry Lesotho, National Information System for Social Assistance Mauritius, Social Register of Mauritius (SRM) Seychelles, IMIS South Africa, SOCPEN Armenia, Family Benefit System Azerbaijan, Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of Population MIS (MLSPP) Macedonia, Cash Benefits Management Information System (CBM) Romania, Integrated Information System for Administration of Social Benefits Turkey, Social Assistance Information System (SAIS) Indonesia, Basis Data Terpadu (or Unified Database for Social Protection, PPLS) Pakistan, National Socio Economic Registry Malaysia, eKasih Philippines, Listahanan (or National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction, NSER)
Panama, Unified Registry of Beneficiaries (RUB) Uruguay, Integrated Information System for the Social Area (SIIAS) Systems that are developed Dominica, National Beneficiary Information System (NBIS) El Salvador, Single Registry of Beneficiaries (RUP) Nicaragua, Unique Registry of Participants (RUP) Paraguay, Single Registry of Beneficiaries Peru, National Registry of Beneficiaries St Lucia, Central Beneficiary Registry Unique Registry Djibouti, Unique Register Unified National Registry Ethiopia, National Household Registry (social registry) and Central Social Protection Management Information System (integrated beneficiary registry) Ghana, Ghana National Household Registry (GNHR) Liberia (name unknown) Malawi, Unified Beneficiary Registry Mali, Social Registry Mauritania, National Social Registry Morocco, Unified Register Nigeria (name unknown) Rwanda, Integrated Management Information System Georgia, System of Social Assistance Jordan, National Unified Registry Lebanon, National Poverty Targeting Program Bangladesh, Bangladesh Poverty Database Cambodia, ID Poor Mongolia, Intersectoral Database of Poor Households and Registry of Beneficiaries Tajikistan, National Registry of Social Protection
Table 7 Selected country experiences, a comparison table Country, name of system and source Year of creation Received donor support Number of individuals/ households registered (relevant year) Number of individuals or households receiving benefits (relevant year) Data collection and updating approach Number/names of social protection programs using database Linkages to protection institutions and their databases Any information on costs Number of staff involved at central level (full time) Brazil Cadastro Único (WWP 2016b; online survey) 2001 Yes 26.8 million households (2015). Amounts to 43% of population. 14 million Bolsa Família beneficiaries, but not currently possible to verify beneficiaries’ receipt of multiple benefits On-demand continuous registration in 9413 centres within country, with obligation of updating every 2 years at most Mobile units for remote locations etc. Over 30 programs at national level, including Bolsa Família, plus several decentralised programs. Does not include social insurance or some flagship social protection programs (e.g. Bolsa Prestação Continuada) Not linked to civil registry but shares data with education and health MISs and with land registration database Being costed now (2016) More than 30 staff Chile Registro Social de Hogares (RSH) (Covarrubias et al. 2011; Azevedo, Bouillon and Irarrázaval 2011; Irarrázaval 2004; WWP 2016b; online survey) 1979 (has had changes since) Institutionalised in 2007 and transformed again in 2016 No 12.4 million individuals, 4 million households (2016). Amounts to 72% of population. Combination of on-demand (within municipalities and online), periodic census survey and use of existing administrative data Continuous update In 2016, over 80 social programs in Chile were using RSH to select their beneficiaries Linked to registry, social insurance database and data from 43 state agencies and their multiple databases, including ministries such as education, health, labour and social security, In the last years, around 0.5 million US dollars annually (2016) 16 staff non-
housing and urban development; and the tax authority, land registration authority etc. Also linked to 345 municipalities Colombia SISBEN (ILO 2015b; Leite et al. 2017) 1995 No info 10.4 million households (2015). Amounts to 73% of population. Started as census survey sweep in geographically targeted areas; now registration and updating at local offices and census survey outreach in areas with highest levels of poverty Now serves 31 programs (including Familias en Acción) and 8 institutions Linked to integrated system of health insurance (SIIS), integrated contribution system of social security, information system for operation of subsidised health insurance, information system for regulation of medicines, and more No info No info Indonesia Basis 2011 Yes, 97 million Depends on Census survey 5 main national Yes, but only No info 37 staff in ad hoc demand
of State Planning 2011, online survey, Chirchir and Kidd 2011, WFP and Government of Kenya 2015) Amounts to approximately 8.4% of population (all included are beneficiaries) programs (census survey) and consolidated nationally . programs in the country: HNSP, OPCT, and World Food Programme asset creation program to social security database in plan Malaysia National Poverty Data Bank (eKasih) (ICU JPM 2013) Created October 2007, rolled out in July 2008 No info 1.2 million individuals (July 2013). Amounts to 4% of population No info Collected from a poverty census Isi Rumah Miskin) Online registration also available No info No info No info No info Pakistan National Socio-Economic Registry (used by BISP) (registry website, BISP-SN 2016 and Malik 2014) 2010 Yes, World Bank and DFID 167 million individuals, 27 million households (2015). Amounts to 92% of population. 4.8 million households were BISP beneficiaries (2015) Data from National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) and BISP census survey (in the field 2016 to update previous Nationwide Poverty Scorecard Survey in 2010–11) On-demand 30 federal and provincial social sector programs, including BISP Links to biometric national ID database (NADRA) but not to social insurance No info No info
registration will also be tested Philippines Listahanan et al. 2017, Listahanan official infographic) 2008 Yes Bank and DFAT 15.3 million households (2016). Amounts to 77% of population. 5.1 million households classified as poor (2016) Census survey Listahanan’s first nationwide update and recertification was undertaken in 2015 Used by 59 programs from many government agencies (including Pantawid CCT, the social pension, subsidised health insurance), as well as by governments and other institutions No info No info No info South Africa SOCPEN (Social Pension System) (system database and website and online survey) 1985 No, national budget 11.4 million individuals registered (‘active beneficiaries’) (January 2016). Amounts to 21% of population. Total number of individual grants paid: 16,893,574 (January 2016) On demand: citizens enter the system on a needs basis Those who qualify for grants go to SASSA’s network of 366 local offices to apply Update is continuous based on system and All social assistance programs: old age grants, disability grants, war veterans’ grants, care dependency grants, foster grants and child support grants Linked to civil registry but not to social insurance database Also linked to national learners database and municipalities’ indigent databases Average running cost for support and maintenance is approximately 37 million South African rand per year 15 technical and 12 functional support resources demand
every contact with client Turkey Integrated Social Assistance Information System (ministry documents and online survey) 2010 No, national budget 34 million individuals registered (9.7 million households) (January 2016). Amounts to 45% of population. Some 3 million households were recipients of any benefits in 2015 On demand through local offices, with additional data from virtual consolidation across a wide range of government databases Regularly as new applicants apply and change their status (on demand) plus household visits to beneficiary households by local officers at least once a year 24 different programs, notably Conditional Cash Transfer Program, Payments for Disabled and Elderly Turkish Citizens, Food and Heating Assistance, Cash Transfers For Vulnerable Groups Linked to civil registry, education MIS, tax system database, cadastral database, portal — overall 112 web services with 22 public institutions Approx. 10 million US dollars (amount includes software and hardware 28 software engineers, 12 expert staff Total approx. 40 Uruguay Sistema de Información Integrada del Área Social (SIIAS) (WWP 2016b, online survey) 2006, operational 2010 Yes, World Bank 4.3 million individuals registered. Amounts to 122% of population, as this includes who have already died, 4 million individuals Data integrated from 15 different administrative databases, including MISs of existing social 62 programs using data Links to civil registry and 15 different institutions providing data To date 3,690,000, US dollars with annual costs estimated at 500,000 US dollars a year 7 staff at national level
Data-sharing arrangements for data collection can lead to further integration down the line Easier to ensure information is up to date (ongoing) and linked to life-cycle events (e.g. pregnancy, birth) Easier to prevent fraud and potentially inclusion errors (instant verification of data) Requires some form of unique identifier, most usefully a national ID number Could exclude households who do not have access to national ID (poorest and most vulnerable) Financial and transaction costs to setting up adequate integration Risks to data privacy and of ‘surveillance state’ Quality of other databases may not be adequate Where data can easily be linked using national ID or other unique identifier In contexts with higher levels of formality (e.g. data describes reality) Source: Adapted and integrated by author from Castaneda and Lindert (2005), World Bank ‘How-To Note’ on Enrolment, and Eurofound (2015). Note: This table focuses on registries facilitating access to social assistance programs alone (not social insurance).
Annex 2 Question checklist: needs assessment and feasibility study Needs assessment — informing design Component Example questions (underlying question for each: How does this affect design choices?) Broad social protection context (policy and legislation) What is the national social protection policy? Priorities? Does this reflect plans for integration? How? What are the policy priorities in terms of integration (see )? (Stakeholder mapping) Who is in charge of delivering social assistance and social security in country, at both central and decentralised level (primary users)? What other stakeholders are involved (secondary users)? Which further actors may have a stake (tertiary users)? What are these actors’ interests? What are their (information and management) needs that integration can help address? What resistance could be encountered? What are the legislative foundations for social protection and for integration? What are the gaps? What is the current degree of fragmentation or integration within social assistance and between social assistance and social insurance? What are the existing mechanisms for horizontal and vertical coordination? What is the level of decentralisation? What capacity is there at local level? Broad e-governance context Does a broader e-governance platform exist? Status? Institutional arrangements? Is there a government framework for ICT and interoperability? What is the main government ICT infrastructure? What are the existing and regulatory provisions for information access, cyber security, data security, data confidentiality, privacy standards, personal data protection etc.? Are these sufficient? What other government information systems could usefully share data (depending on objectives)? E.g. national ID, civil registry, employment and labour, tax system, social security, health, education, land titling, housing and other property etc. Are links with each desirable, and why? Can the national ID be used as a unique identifier? E.g. what percentage of population has national ID; what information is collected; characteristics of with no ID; other forms of ID; most common ID for low-income households; charges or fees for ID; accessibility of registry etc.? Advantages and disadvantages? If not, what alternative solution? Existing programs and business processes What programs exist in country (objectives, budget, implementing agency, targeting criteria, coverage and plans for scaling up, benefits, key features, business processes, information management approach)? Which of these can usefully be integrated? Along which dimensions (e.g.