ToR # 9

ToR# 9

Principal InvestigatorAbul Barkat

Co-InvestigatorsMatiur Rahman, Abdullah Al Hussain, Subhash Kumar Sen Gupta, &

Faisal Mohammad Ahamed

Manob Sakti Unnayan Kendro (MSUK)House 05, Road 08, Mohammadia Housing Society,

Mohammadpur, Dhaka 1207

IMPROVING THE TARGETING EFFECTIVENESS OF SOCIAL SAFETY NETS IN BANGLADESH

Presented at Workshop on

Research to Inform Food and Nutrition Security PoliciesRuposhi Bangla HotelDhaka : November 28, 2012

Background and Objectives

2

Every 3rd household (31.5%; HIES 2010) live in poverty Social safety net programmes (SSNP) have been mainstay of

poverty alleviation strategy since independence Currently, 24.6% HHs (Rural 30.1% & Urban 9.4%) receive

SSNP benefit (HIES 2010), which was 13% in 2005 In FY 2012-13, Tk. 227.5 billion allocated under Social

Protection & Empowerment (11.87% of the budget & equivalent to 2.18% of the GDP) (Social protection 75%; empowerment 25%)

Large amount of money spent on SSNP; number of beneficiaries increasingOften questioned – whether most eligible persons receive SSNPs? TARGETING ERROR (both inclusion and exclusion) is thought to be a

serious drawback to reach the food insecure and the poor, in addition to capacity constraints (e.g., constrained budget)

Background and Objectives … contd..

3

Recent studies identified 4 potential sources of targeting errors:1. Mismatch of geographical allocations of resources & poverty

rates2. Use of improper targetting indicators3. Even if design of SSN targeting mechanism is sound, political

economy & implementation issues at local level overrides it4. Institutional issues at central level foster overlaps and gaps in

coverage

Such targeting errors reduce the resources available to support poorest & most food insecure households. Therefore, objective of Government’s spending on SSNPs not fulfilled effectively.

4

This research is expected to: Provide a comprehensive review of SSNP targeting mechanism &

errors that will enable GoB to improve targeting so that it better reaches the food insecure and the poor

Contribute to achieve major national goals of National Food Policy (2006) & National Food Policy Plan of Action (2008-2015)

Objectives: To map the major sources of targeting errors in social safety nets &

assess their relative contribution To recommend ways to decrease inclusion & exclusion errors at the

programme-level based on experiences in Bangladesh and in South Asia regions

To identify potential ways forward for building a SSN system in Bangladesh

Background and Objectives … contd..

Methodology and Data Sources

5

As per ToR, Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) was the major data source to investigate into targeting performance (inclusion and exclusion errors) of public SSNPs in general and by individual programmes in particular.

The methodology was designed assigning special emphasis on analysis of relevant HIES data.

Preliminary investigation revealed that out of 30 public SSNPs included in HIES 2010, more than 20 programmes have <100 samples (very negligible compared to their countrywide beneficiaries). (E.g., only 4 beneficiary HHs of Maternity Allowance programme included in HIES whose national beneficiary is 88,000.)

To avoid representation problem, study methodology was redesigned in consultation with TAT members & other experts at FAO/NFPCSP.

Methodology and Data Sources …contd…

6

From HIES 2010 data: Analysis made aggregating all beneficiary HHs of all 30 programmes (the term is “public safety net beneficiaries”) together & then for each of the 8 programmes with more than 100 sample HHs.

Recent studies conducted by other organizations/individuals: For the remaining programmes, we reviewed recent studies conducted by other organizations/individuals & used their findings.

Consultation with experts: For the purpose of drawing inferences on the remaining programmes, we consulted experts who have conducted research on safety net targeting or worked in relevant sectors.

Primary data collection: Even after the above three exercises, inferences on some programmes will not be possible. For those programmes a survey will be conducted to obtain primary data from the beneficiary and eligible non-beneficiary HHs.

7

Major Findings based on Secondary Analysis of HIES 2010

8

The HIES (2010) includes (Section 1 Part C) 30 social safety net programmes. The respondent households (n=12,240) were asked 7 questions on safety net programmes. The questions covered:

The HIES 2010 and SSNP in Bangladesh

Whether the household (any member of the household) has been included in any SSNP in the preceding 12 months

If “Yes”, which programme(s) When s/he was included in the programme (month and year) What benefit s/he is entitled to receive from the programme What benefit (cash/kind) s/he has received How much money s/he had to spend to be included in the programme If “not included”, what was the reason for exclusion (both genuine and defects)Other parts of HIES questionnaire include demographic & socioeconomic information of household and members. The broad variables/indicators are:

Individual/Household level information available in the HIES 2010Age, sex, marital status, religion/ethnicity, education and literacy, disability, illness and injury, home, housing and basic service (water, sanitation and electricity), land ownership, asset description

Earning status, employment status, income, economic activity (including agricultural, livestock, fisheries etc), calamity and disaster, loan and remittance, household food and non-food consumption

9

The HIES 2010 and SSNP in Bangladesh

Programme Types

Total public spending on SSNP (FY 2012-13)

Budgetary allocations (for HIES-2010 Programmes)

Total Amount (in billion Taka)

Pension Amount (in billion Taka)

Amount without Pension (in

billion Taka)

% Total Amount

% without Pension

Social Protection Programmes

169.4 45.2 124.2 59.6 81.3

Social Empowerment Programmes

58.2 0 58.2 42.9 42.9

Total SSNP Budget 227.6 45.2 182.4 55.4 69.1

55% of the SSNP budget spent on programmes listed in HIES 2010; Pension constitute 20% of SSNP budget (Is ‘Pension’ SSNP?) Considering the 30 programmes listed in the HIES is a perfect sample for generalizations

about overall public safety net sector

SSNP Beneficiary Targeting The first research issue is identification of targeting errors which can be grouped as inclusion error—meaning inclusion of non-eligible & exclusion error—meaning exclusion of eligible persons

Poverty—the most essential targeting criteria ‘Poverty’/’extreme poverty’/’poor household’ is an essential criterion for all the SSNPs along with other criteria such as low income, landlessness, disability, gender, old age, maternity & other vulnerability etc.

10

SSNP Targeting of Beneficiary

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

Priority CriteriaEssential Criteria

We have compiled all the eligibility (inclusion & exclusion) criteria for most of the selected public SSNPs from relevant documents of the respective programmes.

11

Household demography and receipt of SSNP benefits

Nationally, households with 7-8 and 5-6 members are ahead of other household sizes in terms of receipt of SSNP benefit. Respectively 29% and 28% of beneficiary households are of these sizes.

In rural areas, every 3rd beneficiary household consists of 1-2 members.

Nationally, 86% households are male headed & 14% female headed. Of SSNP beneficiary households, 85% male headed and 15% female headed.

A 30% household receive SSNP benefit where household head is more than 60 years old.

12

SSNP Beneficiary HHs and land ownership statusLand ownership category Frequency PercentLandless 190 6.4<15 decimals but not landless 1,541 51.615-49 decimals 452 15.150 decimals and more 806 27.0Total 2,989 100.0Landlessness or HHs with less than 15 decimal of land is an essential/priority criterion for SSNPs such as Old Age Allowance, Widow Allowance, Disability Allowance, VGD, VGF, Maternal Voucher Scheme, Employment Generation for Extreme Poor (former 100 Days EGP) etc

Programme Name 50 decimals and more (%) Programme Name 50 decimals and

more (%)General Relief Activities 11.2 VGF 17.9

Widowed Allowance 15.1 Stipend for Primary Students 27.6

Gratuitous Relief 15.5 Stipend for Secondary Female Student 45.7

Old age Allowance 16.7 Agriculture Rehabilitation 58.0

13

Respondent Type Literacy Status NLiterate IlliterateAll respondent of HIES 58.8 41.2 47,323SSNP beneficiary Respondent 38.9 61.1 3,475SSNP Non-beneficiary, below UPL* 43.7 56.3 12,786Below UPL, all respondent 42.4 57.6 14,237Below LPL, all respondent 37.6 62.4 7,748*Defined as eligible Non-beneficiary of SSNP**This table is prepared for individuals. If a household is considered poor then all the members within that HH are considered as poor.***A person aged 7 years and above and who is able to write a letter is considered as literate in the HIES

Poverty, SSNP beneficiaries and literacy status

Old age Allowance (13. 6)Widowed Allowance (13.9)Housing Support (20)Test Relief (25)Allowance for Insolvent Disabled (28.1) VGF (28.5)

Cash for Work (29.4)VGD (30)Gratuitous Relief (36.4) Open market sales (37.5) Agriculture Rehabilitation (44.1),

Literacy status of beneficiaries of individual programmes (% literate):

14

Housing, sanitation, electricity and availability of cell phone

• 21% have muddy wall and another 26% have walls made of hemp, hay, bamboo.• 4% have roof made of mud, tally and wood while only 3% have concrete made

roof. • Very negligible number of beneficiary households of the programmes designed

for the ultra poor or other vulnerable groups (e.g., old age allowance, widow allowance, disability allowance, VGD, VGF, GR, TR, FFW etc) have walls or roofs made of brick/cement.

• Only 11% beneficiary households have sanitary latrines.• 39% beneficiary households have electricity connections at their residences.

Nationally, 55% HHs have electricity connections (rural 42.5%, urban 90%• Regardless of programmes, more than half (51.1%) beneficiary households own

cell phone. Nationally, 64% households have cell phone. • No data is available for individuals in the HIES.

15

Poverty, Income, Expenditure and Social Safety Net

16

Poverty HCR and SSNP benefit flow

Division% of HH receiving SSNP Benefit

(Survey Year 2010)Incidence of poverty (HCR) by

CBN Method (HIES 2010)Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban

National 24.6 30.1 9.4 31.5 35.2 21.3Barisal 34.4 37.2 20.7 39.4 39.2 39.9Chittagong 20.0 24.5 7.4 26.2 31.0 11.8Dhaka 18.9 27.8 6.0 30.5 38.8 18.0Khulna 37.3 43.3 16.7 32.1 31.0 35.8Rajshahi 20.7 22.9 10.2 35.7 36.6 30.7Rangpur 33.7 35.1 23.7 46.2 47.2 37.0Sylhet 23.5 26.1 10.5 28.1 30.5 15.0

Highest % of HHs (37.3%) received benefit from SSNPs in Khulna division. On the basis of poverty HCR, Khulna division ranks fourth

Poverty HCR is highest in Rangpur division (HCR 46.2% and 30.1% using the Upper and the Lower poverty lines respectively), on the basis of SNP beneficiaries, it ranks 3rd position with 33.7% beneficiary HHs

Regional disparity (improper allocation of resources) !!!

% distribution of beneficiary and non-beneficiary HHs by income deciles and residence (rural-urban)

Household Income Deciles

SSN beneficiary households (%) Non-beneficiary households (%)

National Rural Urban National Rural Urban

Lower 5% 7.0 7.3 5.7 4.4 5.7 2.4Decile-1 13.3 6.9 9.8 8.9 12.0 4.5Decile-2 11.7 12.5 8.8 9.5 11.3 7.0Decile-3 12.0 13.3 7.0 9.3 10.9 7.1Decile-4 11.9 12.3 10.2 9.4 9.5 9.1Decile-5 12.0 11.6 13.7 9.4 10.0 8.4Decile-6 10.3 9.6 13.0 9.9 9.6 10.3Decile-7 10.0 9.6 11.5 10.0 10.0 10.0Decile-8 8.2 7.8 9.9 10.6 9.5 12.2Decile-9 6.0 5.2 9.1 11.3 9.3 14.2Decile-10 4.6 2.8 7.0 11.8 8.1 17.1Top 5% 1.6 1.1 3.4 6.1 3.9 9.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0N 2,989 2,374 615 9,251 5,466 3,785 17

% distribution of beneficiary HH of major SSNPs by income deciles

Major Safety Net Programmes (HIES

2010)

Household Income Deciles (HIES 2010)

L5% D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 T5%

Old Age Allowance 16.3 26.2 11.1 10.8 10.2 10.0 8.8 8.8 6.3 4.7 3.2 0.9

Allowances for the Widowed, Deserted and Destitute Women

16.8 21.4 14.3 12.6 10.9 12.6 10.5 8.4 5.5 2.1 1.7 0.4

General Relief Activities 6.0 13.6 10.9 12.8 14.7 12.5 12.1 11.3 6.8 3.4 1.9 0.0

Agriculture Rehabilitation 3.3 8.4 11.7 9.0 9.0 11.5 9.5 13.4 9.7 10.4 7.3 2.6

Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) 2.5 12.3 12.3 13.1 15.6 9.0 17.2 11.5 7.4 1.6 0.0 0.0

Gratuitous Relief (GR)- Non-cash 3.2 9.3 13.4 15.0 14.2 16.6 11.5 7.9 8.3 2.2 1.6 0.2

Stipend for Primary Students 3.3 8.9 13.7 12.9 13.7 12.4 10.0 9.2 7.4 6.0 6.0 2.0

Secondary and Higher Secondary Stipend 3.1 6.5 7.3 8.5 10.8 9.2 12.7 8.5 12.3 13.9 10.4 5.0

Only programmes with more than 100 beneficiary households in the HIES 2010 considered.18

Are the HHs getting SSNP poor? SSNPs are meant for the poor. In Bangladesh, 24.6% HHs

receive SSNP (where the poverty rate is 31.5%) Given an ideal situation (i.e., safety net is for the poor), the above

figures seem satisfactory. However, the situation is not as ideal as the figures appear. The reality is as below:

19

All Rural Urban

40.5 40.2 41.6

24.0 25.020.0

Below Upper Poverty Line Below Lower Poverty Line

SSNP beneficiary HHs below Poverty Lines (HIES, 2010)

SSNP beneficiary households below Poverty Lines in the CBN Method (by division and rural urban)

Divisions Location Below Upper Poverty Line Below Lower Poverty Line

NationalTotal 40.5 24.0Rural 40.2 25.1Urban 41.6 20.0

BarisalTotal 47.3 31.1Rural 43.9 30.0Urban 61.3 35.5

ChittagongTotal 36.2 19.4Rural 36.8 19.5Urban 33.8 18.8

DhakaTotal 41.8 24.4Rural 42.3 26.9Urban 40.1 16.6

KhulnaTotal 41.2 20.3Rural 39.5 20.6Urban 48.3 19.3

RajshahiTotal 30.5 17.9Rural 28.6 17.9Urban 37.7 18.0

RangpurTotal 47.8 32.0Rural 50.3 34.2Urban 38.9 24.4

SylhetTotal 31.4 24.7Rural 33.5 27.8Urban 14.3 0.0

% distribution of SSNP beneficiary HHs (8 major SSNPs) by CBN poverty status, HIES 2010

Programme Name HIES Sample Household

Beneficiaries below UPL

Beneficiaries below LPL

Frequency % Frequency %

Old Age Allowance 558 255 45.7 155 27.8Allowances for the Widowed, Deserted and Destitute Women

238 110 46.2 60 25.2

General Relief Activities 265 108 40.8 62 23.4Agriculture Rehabilitation 546 148 26.4 78 13.9Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) 122 53 43.4 27 22.1

Gratuitous Relief (GR)- Non-cash 494 246 49.8 151 30.6

Stipend for Primary Students 599 306 51.6 201 33.6

Secondary and Higher Secondary Stipend 260 73 28.1 42 16.2

21

22

Barisal

Chittagong

Dhaka

Khulna

Rajshahi

Rangpur

Sylhet

National

44.2

31.7

30.4

46.3

19.7

41.1

29.2

34.3

% distribution of HHs below UPL receiving SSNP benefit (HIES, 2010)

Poverty and receipt of SSNP benefit

23

Are these non-poor households borderline poor?

(Tk.) Per capita expenditure of SSNP beneficiary

HHs

Lowest LPL (Khulna Rural)

Highest LPL (Ctg Urban)

Lowest UPL (Sylhet Rural)

Highest UPL (Dhaka SMA)

1997

1192

1495

1311

2038

Different poverty lines and per capita monthly expenditure of SSNP beneficiary households (HIES 2010)

24

Per capita expenditure of poor HHs and SSN beneficiary HHs

Are these non-poor households borderline poor?

Per capita expenditure of SSNP beneficiary HHs

Per capita expenditure of poor (UPL)

Per capita expenditure of poor (LPL)

1931

1200 1056

2573

14581133

1997

12461064

Rural Urban All

25

Poverty status of SSNP beneficiaries with and without SSNP benefit amount

Over 60% beneficiaries received ≤ Tk.100 from their respective SSNP in a month; 33% received between Tk.100 and Tk.300, and only 4% received between Tk. 301 and Tk.500. What happens if the amount is deducted from the HH income?

If SSNP benefit is deducted from the income of the beneficiary households, poverty rate increases by only 2 percentage points

Benefit amount included in income Benefit amount deducted from income

40.5% 42.6%

20.4%26.6%

Poverty Status Below UPL Poverty Status Below LPL

26

Poverty Status of beneficiary household (without the benefit amount) by shifted Upper poverty line

10% above 20% above 30% above 40% above 50% above

50.7%59.3%

66.2%72.0%

76.7%Upper Poverty Line Shifted

% of Poor HH

27

% of Benefit Received by Beneficiary Households

Income Decile 1 Income Decile 10 Combining Lowest 4 deciles

16.4%

6.8%

49.0%

18.4%

6.7%

51.0%

All ProgrammesExcluding the Stipend Programmes

28

• 79% of all households spend more than half of their consumption expenditure in food.

• Rate is highest (92.2%) in lowest income decile.

• Rate is lowest (44.7%) in top income decile.

• Distribution by consumption expenditure deciles provide similar result.

% of food expenditure in consumption expenditure

Income Decile 1 Income Decile 10

All HH

92.2

44.7

78.8

% HH spending more than half of its consumption expenditure in food

29

% of food expenditure in consumption expenditure by different type of Household

All HH SSNP Beneficiary HH Below UPL HH Below LPL

78.887.2

95.2 96.0

% HHs spending more than half of its consumption expenditure in food consumption

30

Targeting errors in certain SSNPs using programme specific eligibility criteria (HIES 2010)

Programmes & Criteria Error Found (%)1 Old age allowance:

Minimum age criteria (male 65 years, female 62 years) 35.2 and 35.6Annual Income of beneficiary (less than Taka 3000) 99.5Beneficiary is from a landless household 19.4Beneficiary of other Public/NGO SSNP 12.4More than one beneficiary from the same Household 1.8

2 Allowance for the Widowed Deserted and DestituteFemale is a Widow/ Deserted by Husband /Destitute 25.2Annual income <12000 Tk. 32.4Beneficiary of other Public/NGO SSNP 6.3

3 General Relief ActivitiesHousehold Affected by Natural Disaster 84.9Household below Lower poverty Line (CBN) 76.6Landless/Less than 10 decimal of land 50.2

Note: Certain indicators are not available in the HIES

31

Programmes & Criteria Error Found (%)4 Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) programme

Landless/Having Less than .15 acres of land 36.9Female Household head 84.4Household affected by Natural Calamity 87.7Multiple Beneficiary from same Household 0.8Beneficiary of other Public/NGO SSNP 4.9

5 Gratuitous Relief-Non-cashHousehold Affected by Natural Disaster 88.9Annual income of Beneficiary <3000 Tk. 99.6Household below Lower poverty Line (CBN) 69.4Landless/Have Less than 10 decimal of land 45.6

6 Stipend for Secondary and Higher Secondary Female StudentsTotal monthly Household income<2500 Taka 95.4Landless/Owning less than .50 acres 44.6

Note: Certain indicators are not available in the HIES

Targeting errors in certain SSNPs using programme specific eligibility criteria (HIES 2010)

32

On leakage and targeting error in SSNP in the Sixth Five Year Plan

The Sixth Five Year Plan of the country states coverage issues, targeting beneficiaries, leakages, and disparity in regional distribution etc as the key challenges of implementing SSNPs are. Some of the highlights are as follows:

While coverage is relatively low, a significant number of HHs gain access to multiple SSNPs. A quarter of HHs were receiving transfers from more than one SSNP.

Over 11% households were participating in at least two of the three programs – VGD, FFE and FFW. Coverage in urban areas remains low.

27% VGD beneficiaries are not poor. 11% participants of PESP meet none of the eligibility criteria; almost

none of the beneficiaries meet at least three criteria. Almost 47% PESP beneficiaries are non-poor and incorrectly included in program.

All HHs within less-poor Upazila are denied assistance, including those with very high food insecurity.

33

On leakage and targeting error in SSNP in the Sixth Five Year Plan…..contd.

Leakage in FFW program is 26%. Leakage in female stipend programs 10%-12%. About 20%-40% budgetary allocations for female secondary

stipend program do not reach beneficiaries. Leakages show a strong correlation with number of intermediaries

in the transfer process. HIES 2005 showed regional disparity in distribution of

households receiving social protection benefits. Barisal and Rajshahi divisions, with the highest incidence of poverty, did not have the correspondingly higher number of social protection beneficiaries. In contrast, Sylhet Division, with the second lowest poverty incidence had the highest proportion of social protection recipients.

34

Concluding observations Coverage & budgetary allocation in SSNP sector – increasing

every year Every 4th HH is covered by SSNP (HIES 2010) The declining trend of poverty over the years at a rate of 1.7%

justifies Government’s spending on SSNP. No concrete evidence that government’s spending on SSNP is

being received by the poor and hence poverty is declining. Large number of beneficiary HHs of major SSNPs are not poor at

least in terms of official measures of poverty. However, it is also not true that the benefits are being captured by

the elites since most beneficiaries are from the lower income deciles.

False prioritization (high inclusion error) exists.

35

Concluding observations

The number of targeting criteria for the existing SSNPs are huge. Some are obsolete and sometimes impractical. (e.g., annual income <Tk.3,000 for Old Age Allowance is quite absurd). Such criteria should be revisited.

The term ‘insolvent’ is used as an eligibility criterion for many

SSNPs. However, it is not properly defined in any of the document. A working definition for this term is necessary.

The term ‘poverty’ is used for most SSNP as an eligibility criterion. However, government's definition of poverty does not seem to match with that of implementation authority. `poverty’ criterion should be administrable.

36

We welcome your valuable comments and suggestions for the improvement of the study

Thank You

37

Backup Slides

38

Programmes Beneficiaries (Nationally)

Beneficiaries in the HIES 2010

Old Age Allowance 2475000 558Allowances for the Widowed, Deserted and Destitute Women 920000 238

Allowances for the Financially Insolvent Disabled 286000 32Maternity allowance programme for the Poor Lactating Mothers 88000 4

Honorarium for Insolvent Freedom Fighters 150000 16Honorarium for Injured Freedom Fighters 8000 14Gratuitous Relief (GR)- Cash 8000000 54General Relief Activities 500000 265Allowances for Distressed Cultural Personalities/Activists 1000 0Food Assistance in CTG-Hill Tracts Area 714000 (Man Month) 14Stipend for Disabled Students 19000 9Grants for the Schools of disabled 12000 0Cash for Work 3810000 (Man Month) 16Housing Support 100000 5Agriculture Rehabilitation 2500000 546Open Market Sales (OMS) 13800000 (Man Month) 6

HIES (2010) and SSNP

39

Programmes Beneficiaries (Nationally) Beneficiaries in the HIES 2010

Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) 8833000 10Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) 12222000 (Man Month) 122Test Relief (TR) Food 3905000 (Man Month) 132Gratuitous Relief (GR)- Non-cash 8000000 (Man Month) 494Food For Work (FFW) 3810000 (Man Month) 4100 days Employment Scheme/ Employment Generation Programme for the Hardcore Poor 4200000 20

Stipend for Primary Students 7800000 599School Feeding Programme 315000 6Stipend for Dropout Students 350000 34Stipend and Access Increase for Secondary and Higher Secondary Level Students (including Proposed Secondary Education Stipend Project)

3600000 260

Maternal Health Voucher Allowance 180000 5Rural Employment Opportunity for Public Asset 25000 2

Char Livelihood Programmes 55000 9Rural Employment and Rural Maintenance Programme 46000 5

Total (Beneficiary Households) --- 2989

HIES (2010) and SSNP

40

% HHs below UPL received SSNP benefit

% HHs below LPL received SSNP benefit

34.2

37.7

Status of poor HHS getting SSNP benefit (HIES 2010)

41

Targeting/Eligibility CriteriaNo. Beneficiaries

included in the HIES-2010

No. of beneficiary not satisfying the

criteria

% of Error

Inclusion Criteria (Essential)Age >65 years (Male) 276 97 35.2Age >62 years (Female) 292 104 35.6Annual income of Beneficiary <3000 Tk. 558 555 99.5Beneficiary from a Landless HH 558 108 19.4Beneficiary is Physically Infirm - - -Beneficiary is handicapped - - -Exclusion CriteriaBeneficiary is a Government Service Holder - - -Beneficiary is a Pension Recipient - - -Beneficiary is a VGD Card Holder Women 558 0 0.0Beneficiary of other Public/NGO SSNP 558 69 12.4More than one beneficiary from the same Household

558 10 1.8

Beneficiary is a Day laborer/Maidservant/Vagrant - - -** Certain indicators are not available in the HIES

Targeting Efficiency of Old Age Allowance

Performance assessment using programme specific variables

Targeting Efficiency of Widow Allowance

42

Targeting/Eligibility Criteria

No. Beneficiaries


No. of beneficiary

not satisfying the criteria

% of Error

Inclusion Criteria (Essential)Female is a Widow/Husband’s Deserted/Distitute 238 60 25.2

Annual income <12,000 Tk 238 77 32.4Exclusion CriteriaBeneficiary is a Government Service Holder - - -

Beneficiary is a Pension Recipient - - -Beneficiary is a VGD Card Holder Women 238 0 0.0

Beneficiary of other Public/NGO SSNP 238 15 6.3** Certain indicators are not available in the HIES


43

Targeting Efficiency of Targeting Efficiency of General Relief Activities


No. Beneficiary household



criteria

% of Error

Household Affected by Natural Disaster 265 225 84.9

Household below Lower poverty Line (CBN) 265 203 76.6

Landless/Less than 10 decimal of land 265 133 50.2


44

Targeting Efficiency of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF)

Targeting/Eligibility/Exclusion Criteria




criteria

% of Error

Inclusion Criteria (Essential)The recipient is a Day laborer 122 - -Landless/Having Less than 0.15 acres of land 122 45 36.9

Female Household head 122 103 84.4Household affected by Natural Calamity 122 107 87.7

Exclusion CriteriaMultiple Beneficiary from same Household 122 1 0.8

Beneficiary of other Public/NGO SSNP 122 6 4.9

** Certain indicators are not available in the HIES


45

Targeting Efficiency of Gratuitous Relief-Non-cash





criteria

% of Error

Household Affected by Natural Disaster 494 439 88.9

Annual income of Beneficiary <3000 Tk. 494 492 99.6

Household below Lower poverty Line (CBN) 494 343 69.4

Landless/Have Less than 10 decimal of land 494 225 45.6


46

Targeting Efficiency of Stipend for Secondary and Higher Secondary/ Female Student





criteria

% of Error

Total monthly Household income<2500 Taka 260 248 95.4

Landless/Owning less than .50 acres 260 116 44.6Household headed by person with disabilities or incapable to earn 260

HH Head is a Wage Laborer or Rickshaw Puller 260

** Certain indicators are not available in the HIES


47

Divisions % of beneficiary HHS below UPL

% of beneficiary HHS below LPL

Barisal 43.6 26.4Chittagong 36.8 18.1Dhaka 41.8 24.4Khulna 42.9 21.1Rajshahi 31.9 18.5Rangpur 47.8 32.2Sylhet 33.1 25.8Total 40.5 23.4(All SSNPs) 40.5 24.0

Percentage distribution of the SSNP beneficiary HHs (except 2 stipend programmes) by poverty status in the CBN method, HIES 2010

Poverty and SSNP beneficiary HHs (except 2 stipend)

48

Cause of Not being Included in a Programme Frequency Percent Cumulative

PercentBeneficiary Recipients (individual) 3,508 6.3 6.3Not Applicable (HH members age <5 years) 5,630 10.1 16.4Did not know about the programme 2,045 3.7 20.1Not eligible for the programme 29,939 53.9 74.0Eligible for the programme but did not apply 1,853 3.3 77.3Due to budget constraints 1,769 3.2 80.5Selection was not proper 9,975 17.9 98.5No programme in this area 861 1.5 100Total 55,580 100

Distribution of the reported reasons for not being included in major Public SSNPs

Reported reasons for exclusion

49

No. of benefits received by HHs Frequency Percent Cumulative

Percent

1 2,555 85.5 85.5

2 366 12.2 97.7

3 55 1.8 99.6

4 9 0.3 99.9

5 4 0.1 100

Total Beneficiary HHs 2,989 100

Status of multiple beneficiary recipient Households in HIES 2010

Multiple beneficiary recipient

Key Research questions by Broad Scopes

50

Scope 1: Targeting of Social Safety Nets in Bangladesh1. What are the main characteristics of the targeting process (targeting

mechanism) of selected public safety net programmes (SSNP) in Bangladesh?

2. How effective is the targeting performance (outreach to the poorest) of the major public SSNPs?

3. What targeting mechanisms are adopted in the large NGO safety net programmes of the country?

Scope 2: Inclusion and Exclusion Errors1. Who are the excluded households from public SSNPs (in relation to

poverty, location, gender and age of head, dependency ratio, and data permitting, food security and nutrition status)?

2. What are public SSNPs that the food-insecure households access?

3. What are the inclusion errors of public safety net programmes?4. What are the factors accounting for errors in different regions, programs

and targeting methodologies?

The 12 month long research project will make efforts to answer the following research questions at the end of the study:

51

Scope 3: Addressing Errors 1. What are the challenges faced by major SSNPs to address inclusion

and exclusion errors in Bangladesh and in the South Asia region?2. What are the good practices in certain SSNPs that can be used to

address inclusion and exclusion errors in Bangladesh and in the South Asia region for major safety net programmes?

3. What are complementarities between geographical, household-level and community-based targeting of SSNPs?

4. What potential roles can information technology play to improve targeting outcomes?

5. What roles can grievances and accountability measures play to improve targeting outcomes given existing administrative and political capacities?

6. What are the effective/successful mechanisms adopted by NGO programs that can be adjusted/scaled-up to government-run programmes?


52

Scope 4: Effective Targeting in Bangladesh 1. What are the options for improving the effectiveness of

targeting, in particular decreasing exclusion errors, in Bangladesh?

2. What are the institutional issues of coordination between programmes at the local level and line ministries at the central level?

3. What is the relevance and feasibility of a nationwide targeting/identification system of SSNPs, with a potential road map?


Matrix: Safety Net programmes considered for the proposed survey

53

Serial

Programmes Programme Type Included/excluded in the proposed survey Reason for inclusion/exclusion

1 Old Age Allowance Regular cash transfer

included

Number of total beneficiaries is large Lists of beneficiaries by Ward available at the UP

Level Waiting list is also available

2Allowances for the Widowed, Deserted and Destitute Women

Regular cash transfer

included Number of total beneficiaries is large list of beneficiaries available at the UP Level

3Allowances for the Financially Insolvent Disabled


Included but maybe dropped if sufficient sample not available at PSU level

Small programme but important because it benefits a particular vulnerable group

4Maternity allowance programme for the Poor Lactating Mothers

Fixed duration (2 years cycle) cash transfer


Number of beneficiaries is low, will require specific selection of respondent in the selection area (if beneficiaries exist), on average at least one beneficiary will exist in a village but this may not be the reality, not possible to select specific area for this kind of beneficiary

5 Honorarium for Insolvent Freedom Fighters

Regular cash transfer excluded

Although number of total beneficiaries is moderate, they are not distributed equally in the PSU

Does not address poor people in general

6 Honorarium for Injured Freedom Fighters


excluded Small programme Does not address poor people in general

7 Gratuitous Relief (GR)- Cash & Food Relief Activities included

Number of total beneficiaries is large Easy to find with random selection at the field level

8 General Relief Activities Relief ActivitiesIncluded but maybe dropped if beneficiaries cannot be identified during survey

Number of total beneficiaries is large

54

Sl Programmes Programme Type Included/excluded in the proposed survey Reason for inclusion/exclusion

9Allowances for Distressed Cultural Personalities/Activists

Cash Transfer excluded Number of total beneficiaries is very small Will require purposive selection if list exist

10 Food Assistance in CTG-Hill Tracts Area Food Security excluded

Area Specific Programme Random Selection of areas may prove to be a ‘not so

good’ option Will need specific sampling or selection of area

11 Stipend for Disabled Students

Stipend (regular)


Number of Beneficiaries is small, may require purposive sample selection, random selection of respondents in the sampling area may exclude the beneficiaries within the selected area

12Grants for the Schools of disabled

Institutional grant excludedHousehold interviewing may not be a option to collect information

13 Food/Cash for Work Works Programme included Large programme Easy to find with random selection at the field level, List of beneficiaries exist

14 Housing Support Relief Activities & DisasterManagement

excluded Small programme Beneficiaries are not distributed equally in the PSU Area specific programme

15 Agriculture Rehabilitation Seasonal included Large programme Easy to find with random selection at the field level But it does not include the poor/vulnerable people

16 Open Market Sales (OMS) Food transfer at lower price

excluded Although OMS is a large programme, it has no fixed

beneficiary Identification of beneficiary is not possible during survey


55


17 Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) Food Security included

Number of total beneficiaries is large Easy to find with random selection at the field level

18 Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF)

Food Security included Number of total beneficiaries is large Easy to find with random selection at the field level

19 Test Relief (TR) Food Relief Activities excluded Programme does not benefit individuals directly

20

100 days Employment Scheme/ Employment Generation Programme for the Hardcore Poor

Works Programme included Number of total beneficiaries is large Easy to find with random selection at the field level

21 Stipend for Primary Students Stipend (regular) included Number of total beneficiaries is large Easy to find with random selection at the field level

22 School Feeding Programme Tiffin for school students excluded

Area specific programme Will require purposive area selection Poverty is not a selection criteria for the beneficiary (all

the students in a school receive the benefit irrespective of poverty status)

23Stipend for Dropout Students(may be considered for selection)

Stipend (regular) excluded

Small programme; Number of beneficiaries is very smaller than other stipend programmes (primary and secondary level stipend programmes),

not possible to select specific area for this kind of beneficiary,

will require purposive section of beneficiary

24

Stipend and Access Increase for Secondary and Higher Secondary Level Students (including Proposed Secondary Education Stipend Project)

Stipend (regular) included Number of total beneficiaries is large easy to find with random selection at the field level


56


25 Maternal Health Voucher Allowance

Single time benefit

excluded

Very small programme will require specific selection of respondent in the

selection area (if beneficiaries exist), not possible to select specific area for this kind of beneficiary

26Rural Employment Opportunity for Public Asset Works Programme excluded Small and area specific programme

27 Char Livelihood Seasonal excluded Area Specific Programme Random Selection of areas may prove to be a ‘not so

good’ option, will need specific area sampling.

28Rural Employment and Rural Maintenance Programme (RERMP)

Works ProgrammeIncluded but maybe dropped if sufficient sample not available at PSU level

Small programme but very much poverty focused


57

Average duration of SSNP benefit receiving for major regular SSNPs

Programme Name Average Duration (month)

Average Duration (year)

Old age allowance 45.6 3.8

Allowance for Widowed, Deserted and Destitute Women 44.6 3.7

Stipend for Secondary and Higher Secondary Level Students 25.4 2.1

Stipend for Primary Students 25 2.1

Honorarium for Freedom Fighters* 53.5 4.5

Allowances for the Financially Insolvent Disabled 44.6 3.7

*Aggregating the ‘Honorarium for Injured Freedom Fighters’ and ‘Honorarium for Insolvent Freedom Fighters’ together

Note: The HIES 2010 survey ended in January 2011. These duration estimates are made as of January 2011.

The HIES did not ask the households whether any member received SSNP benefit in the lifetime. It only focused the current situation. The proposed survey may consider this issue.

58

HH size and residence (rural-urban)

HH Size National Rural Urban

All size 24.4 30.3 14.0

1-2 26.6 33.6 12.9

3-4 20.6 27.3 10.2

5-6 28.1 32.9 18.8

7-8 28.6 32.8 19.6

9-10 20.3 24.5 12.7

11+ 22.7 25.0 17.1

59

Age of HH head & residence (rural-urban)

Age of Head of HH National Rural Urban

All Age 24.4 30.3 14.0

<=29 17.4 21.4 9.6

30-39 22.1 28.3 11.5

40-49 25.4 32.2 14.7

50-59 24.6 30.4 15.0

60+ 30.0 35.0 18.3

60

Gender, Marital Status, religion and residence (rural-urban)

HH Characteristics

HHs receiving SSNP (%) N=2989

National Rural Urban

National 24.4 30.3 14.0Gender of Household Head

Male 24.3 30.3 13.8Female 25.3 30.2 14.9

Marital Status (of household Head)Married 23.5 29.2 13.6

Unmarried 27.3 34.3 14.6Widowed/divorced 33.0 39.8 18.0

ReligionMuslim 24.0 29.6 14.2

Non-Muslim 27.2 34.8 12.2

61

Beneficiary HHs by land ownership and residence

Size of Land Holding (acres)

HHs receiving SSNP (%) N=2,989

National Rural Urban

All size 24.4 30.3 14.0No Land 17.9 33.1 9.7

<0.05 19.2 26.5 11.90.05-0.49 25.7 31.7 15.00.50-1.49 29.7 31.8 18.81.50-2.49 32.1 31.6 35.62.50-7.49 29.2 29.8 25.0

7.50+ 20.6 20.7 20.0

62

Programme Name Landless 15 Decimals and Less (not landless)

15> Decimals but < 50 Decimals

50 Decimals and more N

Stipend for Primary Students

4.1 49.5 18.7 27.6 630

Old age Allowance 6.7 59.2 17.4 16.7 568Agriculture Rehabilitation 1.4 20.5 20.0 58.0 560Gratuitous Relief 6.0 64.2 14.3 15.5 503General Relief Activities 11.9 59.7 17.3 11.2 278

Stipend for Secondary Female Student

3.2 34.5 16.6 45.7 278

Widowed Allowance 8.0 60.1 16.8 15.1 238

VGF 12.2 59.4 10.6 17.9 123

Beneficiary HHs by land ownership categories

Chi-Square scores for categories of different demographic characteristics

It is evident that there is statistically significant difference in the safety net receiving in the urban and rural areas at 1% level of significance. The different household size is also significant at 1% level of significance for safety net receiving as well as the land ownership categories and age of the head of the household. However, there is no statistically significant difference in the safety net receiving by the sex of the household head at 5% level of significance which is also true for religious identity of the household.

It is also found that there is statistically significant difference in the poverty status (both UPL and LPL) in urban and rural areas at 1% level of significance. The different household size is also significant at 1% level of significance for poverty status (both UPL and LPL) as well as the land ownership categories and age of the head of the household. There is no statistically significant difference in the poverty status (for LPL) by the sex of the household head at 5% level of significance which is also true for religious identity of the household.

63

Demographic Characteristics

Chi-Square ScoresSSNP beneficiary

statusPoverty Status based on UPL

Poverty Status based on LPL

Urban-Rural 405.9 82.4 151.0

Household Size 87.6 415.6 327.9

Land Ownership 103.4 316.1 225.3

Age of HH Head 83.6 117.9 78.6

Sex of HH Head 0.9 25.1 6.6

Marital Status of HH Head 50.5 6.3 10.9

Religious Status of HH 3. 390 3.7 5.7

64

Chi-Square scores for categories of different demographic characteristics

65

Programmes Literacy Status NLiterate Illiterate

Stipend for Primary Students 54.3 45.7 630Old age Allowance 13.6 86.4 568Agriculture Rehabilitation 44.1 55.9 560Gratuitous Relief 28.6 71.4 503General Relief Activities 33.1 66.9 278Stipend for Secondary Female Student 99.6 0.4 278Widowed Allowance 13.9 86.1 238VGF 28.5 71.5 123

SSNP beneficiaries and their literacy status

66

Housing and Sanitation Condition of SSNP beneficiary HHs

Material of Wall F % Material of Roof F %

Brick/cement 368 12.3 Concrete (brick/cement/rod) 97 3.2

C.I. Sheet/wood 1210 40.5 C.I. Sheet/wood 2505 83.8Mud brick 622 20.8 Mud/tally/wood 112 3.7Hemp/hay/bamboo 767 25.7 Hemp/hay/bamboo 235 7.9Other 22 0.7 Other 40 1.3Total 2989 100 Total 2989 100

Latrine type Frequency PercentSanitary 342 11.4Pacca latrine (water seal) 377 12.6Pacca latrine (pit) 490 16.4Kacha latrine (perm) 894 29.9Kacha latrine (temp) 719 24.1Other 167 5.6Total 2989 100

67

HH electrification status of SSNP beneficiaries

Electricity & Cell Phone F %SSNP beneficiary HHs with electricity in their house 1164 38.9Beneficiary HHs have cell phone 1525 51.1

N 2989 100.0

Nationally 55.26% of the HHs has electricity connections (Rural 42.49%, Urban 90.10%

68

Incidence of poverty (HCR) by CBN method by division (HIES 2010 and 2005)

Poverty Line and Division

2010 2005Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban

Using the Upper Poverty LineNational 31.5 35.2 21.3 40.0 43.8 28.4Barisal 39.4 39.2 39.9 52.0 54.1 40.4Chittagong 26.2 31.0 11.8 34.0 36.0 27.8Dhaka 30.5 38.8 18.0 32.0 39.0 20.2Khulna 32.1 31.0 35.8 45.7 46.5 43.2Rajshahi (Former) 35.7 36.6 30.7 51.2 52.3 45.2Rajshahi (New) 29.8 30.0 29.0 - - -Rangpur 46.2 47.2 37.0 - - -Sylhet 28.1 30.5 15.0 33.8 36.1 18.6

Per Capita monthly expenditure of the poor by residence and divisions (Taka)

DivisionPer Capita expenditure of the Poor

Using Lower Poverty Line Using Upper Poverty Line

Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban

2010

National 1064.9 1056.0 1133.4 1245.8 1200.0 1457.7Barisal 1044.7 1031.4 1119.9 1176.0 1140.9 1348.8

Chittagong 1174.5 1169.8 1231.9 1381.8 1361.7 1540.6

Dhaka 1071.3 1060.2 1174.8 1290.9 1192.6 1610.2

Khulna 1018.1 984.1 1124.3 1212.6 1170.0 1337.5

Rajshahi 1041.1 1034.8 1074.3 1205.2 1186.8 1280.7

Rangpur 1027.1 1019.7 1109.3 1150.2 1140.8 1247.8

Sylhet 1049.4 1051.0 1013.2 1117.0 1102.6 1276.9

69

% distribution of beneficiary and non-beneficiary HHs by consumption expenditure deciles and residence (rural-urban)

Expenditure Deciles

SSN beneficiary households (%) Non-beneficiary households (%)

National Rural Urban National Rural Urban

Lower 5% 8.8 9.6 5.9 3.8 5.0 1.9Decile-1 15.0 16.6 8.8 8.4 10.9 4.8Decile-2 12.4 12.7 11.1 9.2 10.8 7.0Decile-3 11.2 12.0 8.3 9.6 11.0 7.6Decile-4 11.6 11.8 10.7 9.5 10.8 7.6Decile-5 11.4 11.5 10.7 9.6 10.4 8.3Decile-6 10.5 10.9 9.3 9.8 10.5 8.9Decile-7 9.1 9.2 8.9 10.3 10.0 10.7Decile-8 7.7 6.9 10.7 10.8 10.1 11.7Decile-9 6.5 5.2 11.4 11.1 8.8 14.6Decile-10 4.7 3.3 10.1 11.7 6.8 18.8Top 5% 1.9 1.1 5.0 6.0 3.2 10.0Total/Deciles 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0N 2,989 2,374 615 9,251 5,466 3,785

71

% distribution of beneficiary HHs of major SSNPs by consumption expenditure deciles

Major Safety Net Programmes (HIES 2010)

Household Income Deciles (HIES 2010)

L5%

D1 D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

D9

D10

T5%

Old Age Allowance 20.3 28.3 12.2 7.5 10.0 10.6 10.4 7.9 4.7 6.1 1.4 0.9

Allowances for the Widowed, Deserted and Destitute Women

16.8 26.1 17.7 13.0 8.0 9.7 8.8 6.3 5.9 2.9 1.7 0.4

General Relief Activities 10.2 14.7 10.2 12.5 10.2 15.1 10.2 9.8 7.9 5.7 3.8 1.1

Agriculture Rehabilitation 1.8 6.8 7.7 9.7 11.4 12.1 12.3 10.6 11.7 9.2 8.6 3.5

Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) 6.6 14.8 18.0 10.7 16.4 10.7 11.5 10.7 6.6 0.8 0.0 0.0

Gratuitous Relief (GR)- Non-cash 9.1 16.8 15.8 14.6 13.0 12.4 9.5 6.7 5.9 4.3 1.2 0.6

Stipend for Primary Students 2.2 7.9 15.2 12.2 14.5 10.9 10.5 10.4 8.7 6.0 3.8 1.7

Secondary and Higher Secondary Stipend 1.2 3.5 5.8 7.3 10.8 8.1 10.0 13.9 11.5 15.0 14.2 5.0

Only programmes with more than 100 beneficiary households in the HIES 2010 considered. 71

72

Estimating the Monthly benefit amount received by SSNP beneficiaries

• Beneficiaries of Safety Net Programmes with Regular Monthly Allowance (in taka) are assumed to receive the fixed amount every month.

• For the benefits that are given in kind, the money value is estimated.

• In order to convert the kind benefits to equivalent money value, the per kg value of kind (rice, wheat etc.) is estimated from HIES 2010 data.

• Benefit that are received once in a year, is divided by 12 to find out the average amount of benefit received in a month.

ToR # 9

Documents

mechanism errors

inclusion exclusion

food insecure households

ssnp benefit hies

bangladesh background

social protection empowerment

gdp social protection

bangladesh tor