Targeting in a National Social Safety Net Programme

WFP Turkey

• EU funded nationwide assistance programme to refugees in Turkey

• Registration: Ministry of Interior

• Implementation: Ministry of Family & Social Policies

• Aligns with national social welfare system

• Objective: Meeting basic needs

• Targeting 1,000,000 vulnerable refugees

• ATM card uploaded monthly

• Unconditional unrestricted cash transfer of 100 TL (~$30) per person

Background

Emergency Social Safety Net

1.Establishing Criteria

2.Implementation & Practical Constraints

3.Analysis: Inclusion/Exclusion Errors

4.Process: Revising targeting methodology

5.Q&A

Agenda

• MoFSP provides assistance by specific eligibility criteria – e.g. disability, pregnancy, education

• Applications submitted at local Social Assistance Solidarity Foundation (SASF)

• All applicants receive a visit by SASF officer. Complete 12 page form, determine eligibility based on responses and visual assessment of household

National Systems

1. Establishing Criteria: Systems

ESSN Systems

• Use sub-set of essential questions within MoFSP application form

• All applications assessed immediately for eligibility

• Followed by household visit within one year: addresses inclusion error

Select questions from application form that are verifiable, and allow reliable identification of vulnerable households

Select thresholds that allow selection of one million refugees (of ~three million)

• Only available data for eligible populations: DGMM demographic data (MoI)

• VAM mission in March 2016: analysis of available data

• Working Groups in April 2016 (WFP, UNHCR, UNICEF, TRC)

• Agreed upon criteria using:

• Regression analysis (statistically significant predictors of HH welfare, defined

as per capita expenditure)

• WB UNHCR Welfare of Syrian Refugees

• Internationally used criteria

1. Establishing Criteria: Analysis

1. Establishing Criteria

Criteria Definition

Dependency ratio >1.5 ((0-17 yrs + 60+ yrs) / (18-59 yrs)) > 1.5

Large Families Any household with four or more children (<18

yrs)

Two disabled members Any two members of household are disabled

(requires medical certificate showing at least 40

percent disability to align with the national system)

Single Parent Household Not accompanied by other adults (18-59yrs) and

with at least 1 child (<18 yrs)

Elderly Headed household

(>60 years)

Not accompanied by any other adult (18-59 yrs)

Single female: Not accompanied by other household members (1

person HH)

Plan to have additional referral systems to capture exceptions to these

rules

26 December – 25 January: Eligible Households (19,145)

1. Establishing Criteria: Eligibility

81.27%

77.38%

20.97%

2.92%

2.37%

0.15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Dependency Ratio

4+ Children

Single Parents

Single Female

Elderly Headed

Two Disabled

26 Dec - 25 January: Eligible Households(19,145) by Critiera

2. Implementation & Practical Considerations (1)

1. DGMM data (Ministry of Interior):

• Intended use: verify HH demographics declared on application

• Requires: Integration of MoI system with MoFSP system

• Challenge:

• Significant delays in integration

• Data quality issues

• Unverified. Must have IDs for all declared family members. Can choose not to

declare family members in application.

2. Lack of transparency/accountability

• No publication of criteria due to lack of verification

• Lack of understanding around eligibility – confusion, anger, re-applications, crowding

2. Implementation & Practical Considerations (2)

3. Household vs. Family

• Turkish national system: assessed by address

• Refugees: many families living within one address

• SASF staff unfamiliar with splitting families within address; many not doing this

• 4+ children criteria - unreliable

4. Nationwide Implementation:

• Applications accepted at 980 SASF offices

• Each office with own practice, application procedures vary

5. Referrals System:

• No referrals system established in or out

• In: challenges accepting NGOs, establishing reliable system

• Out: no practical system in place. Referring to what? By whom? How?

• Results in 100% reliance on demographic criteria = exclusion error

6. Lack of data for analysis!

2. Implementation & Practical Considerations (3)

• Exclusion Error: poor, vulnerable households who do not meet the demographic criteria

• Inclusion error: wealthier households who meet the criteria. Addressed through SASF household visits

• Quantifying errors: per capita expenditure, FCS

3. Analysis: Inclusion & Exclusion Errors

Baseline: Exclusion Error

23.7%

33.1%

45.5%

54.3%

63.3%

76.3%

66.9%

54.5%

45.7%

36.7%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Poorest

2

3

4

Wealthiest

Exclusion/Inclusion: Baseline Data (1562 HHs)

Excluded Included

Exclusion Error:• 23.7% of poorest households excluded = 4.74% of total

population

• Bottom two quintiles = 11.37% of total population

Expenditure

Expenditure & Food Consumption

Baseline

PAB # % of total pop

Exclusion Error 275 17.75%

Inclusion Error 282 18.21%

Baseline Data Percentile Group of per capita expenditure

Eligibility FCG Poorer 2 3 4 Wealthier

ESSN

ineligible

Poor 7 8 14 11 4

Borderline 32 40 43 44 24

Acceptable 47 69 105 138 187

ESSN

Eligible

Poor 18 11 7 6 5

Borderline 57 44 32 23 10

Acceptable 146 135 113 89 80

• Exclusion of the very poorest (0-20%) households:

• 1.76–5.33% of total population

• Exclusion of poor (0-40%) households + poor, borderline FCS:

• 9.16-17.7% of total population

• Likely higher – these quintiles are relative within a dataset of mostly poor households

Three datasets

Summary of Results

Addressing Exclusion Error:Socioeconomic Criteria

1. High Crowding

2. House without proper latrine and/or kitchen

3. Substandard housing (defined as ‘not concrete’ in WB report)

4. Not paying rent or owning accommodation (almost all pay rent here…)

5. Education level of HH head (not available in our datasets)

Based on WB/HCR Welfare of Syrian Refugees

1a. Crowding: Evidence

4.08

3.18

2.60

1.98

1.48

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Poorest 2 3 4 Wealthiest

Verification: Crowding (people per sleeping room)

.13

.12

.10

.09

.08

.00

.02

.04

.06

.08

.10

.12

.14

Poorest 2 3 4 Wealthiest

PAB: Crowding (people per meter squared)

Clear link between HH welfare and crowding

• Number of individuals in residence/ Number of (sleeping) rooms in residence

• Per capita living space - significant predictor in regression analysis

• Running water and electricity in almost every HH (only 1 without)

• Internal toilet (83.7%); Kitchen (85%) – linked to HH welfare

2a. Housing Facilities

69.7% 69.60%

93.20% 95.40%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Internal Toilet Kitchen

Housing Facilities by wealth

Poorest: bottom two quintiles Better off (40-100%)

2b. Facilities in Residence:

Families not meeting demographic criteria

Electrical Infrastructure in

Residence

Yes 99.7%

No 0.3%

Toilet Facilities

Acceptable Toilet (inside) 94.4%

Unacceptable Toilet

(outside)

5.6%

Application Form: What facilities

are available in your residence?

Bathroom or shower

Toilet (inside the house)

Kitchen

Central Heating

Electricity System

Water tank

Piped water system (tap water)

Natural gas

Hot water

Cable TV

Elevator

Parking Garage

3a. Housing Type

Residence Type Frequency Percent

Apartment1469 51.1

Barn1 .0

Unfinished building25 .9

Basement56 1.9

Tent10 .3

Store - unused shop198 6.9

Slum534 18.6

Detached house568 19.8

Abandoned construction8 .3

Other4 .1

Total2873 100.0

48.78%51.22%

Substandard Housing: All Assessed Households

Sub-standard housing Acceptable housing

Did not track well with other variables – categories is too subjective/ open to different interpretations by field staff

3b. Housing Type

63.3%

55.2%

75.9%

40.0%

51.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Poorest 2 3 4 Wealthiest

Substandard housing

Defining Additional Criteria:Thresholds & Challenges

• Application data is required in order to understand the percentage of households who meet each criteria

• To set threshold, we need to establish a combination of criteria – i.e. a household who meets 3 of 5 of the socioeconomic criteria will be eligible.

• Ability to do this depends on the quality of the data – have all applications reliably included these variables? I.e. does 0 facilities really indicate that the household has no facilities, or simply they did not ask that question??

• Key Challenge: No source of verification. Requires household visit prior to determining eligibility? Operationally feasible? Implications on publicising criteria…

1. Burden Index

• Used in Lebanon

• Different weightings for different HH members: gender, age, ability

2. Referrals

• Any system relying exclusively on statistics will have some exclusion error

• Human element to address exceptions to rules

• Current system disadvantages less educated, less connected

• Balance: standardisation vs. subjectivity

Addressing Exclusion Error: Other

1. Targeting Working Group with all stakeholders to discuss options

2. Application data analysis: determine reliability, thresholds

3. Consultations with SASFs:

– Possibilities for new criteria, implications on process and household visits

– Political acceptability of referrals, and operational implications

4. Process: Targeting Revisions

4. Targeting Working Group to endorse

proposal for changes

5. Presentation to ESSN Governing Board

Questions?

World Food Programme

Via C.G. Viola, 68/70 - 00148 Rome, Italy