0

Linking Cash and Social Services

Conference: “Social Protection for

Children - Sharing good practices”

Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 16th to 18th October 2017

Fabio Veras Soares – IPC-IG

Cash in Social Protection

Social Protection traditional definition encompasses:

(i) social insurance

(ii) social assistance and

(iii) labour market interventions

Different forms of income support – paid as cash – are

involved in these three areas – including contributory, semi-

contributory and non-contributory types of income support.

1

Relevance and Prevalence of Cash for Children

• Several of the social protection cash-based interventions can

have an impact on both reducing and preventing monetary and

non-monetary child poverty;

• However, whereas child specific family benefits are a relatively

common and accepted feature of social insurance (contributory

social protection), child-focused social assistance/safety nets

are more controversial…

• Monetary benefits for working-age population are always

controversial… largely due to fear of negative impact on labour

force participation (dependency argument)

• Link with social services besides potentially providing synergies

can attenuate criticisms related to the dependency argument.

2

Evolution of social security systems by branch: family and

children benefit is the second least prevalent.

3

Cash and Social Services (1)

Some forms of income support (cash benefits) are outside the social protection

sector:

(i) financed by sectoral budgets (e.g. Min. of Education, Min. of Health)

(ii) primarily design as a “nudge” – low cost incentives

(iii) social sector objectives have prevalence over social assistance objectives

However, they still have have a social protection role…

Examples:

(i) Scholarships and some forms of conditional cash transfers (CCTs) in the

education sector

(ii) stipend during health treatment or nutrition support

(iii) investment grants and training vouchers for the unemployed

In these cases the link between cash and social services are, by definition, more

straightforward. 4

Cash and Social Services (2)

However, the cash plus debate has been largely driven in the

international debate by the expansion of cash-based social

assistance programmes, particularly in Latin America, but

also in Asia and Africa.

This led some practitioners and specialists to draw attention

to a potential trade off between income support and

provision of social services:

“Cash is not enough, cash is not a silver bullet, cash drives

away resources and attention from (basic) social

services)”5

Cash and Social Services (3)

However two interesting aspects of the recent social cash

transfer (SCT) expansion seem to have facilitate the link

between cash and social services:

(i) Child-focused objectives of SCT: raising issues around

potential and limits of cash for nutrition, ECD, health,

education and domestic violence;

(ii) Expansion of administrative records (single registries and

integrated systems) – allowing the identification of

coverage gaps (exclusion), supply deficiencies (quantity

and quality) and potentially improving coordination.6

Case Study: CCTs in Latin American

Number of programmes in the region:

Source: ECLAC < http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/41811/1/S1700419_es.pdf>

7

Case Study: CCTs in Latin American

Coverage in % and millions of people

Number of programmes in the region:

Source: ECLAC < http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/41811/1/S1700419_es.pdf>

8

CCT and Social Services in Latin American Countries

Key Features:

Two objectives:

(i) Short-term poverty alleviation through transfers and

(ii) long-term (sustainable) poverty reduction through

investments in the nutrition, health and education (co-

responsibility: family and State)

Clearly objective (ii) requires complementary measures on

the supply side:

(i) Family compliance (conditionality)

(ii)Supply expansion (budget)

(iii) Complementary programmes9

CCT and Social Services in Latin American Countries

Complementary Programmes:

Two types:

(i) Programme adapted to the needs of the beneficiary of the

CCT programmes and exclusive for them – sectoral?

(ii) Facilitated access to existing programmes – referral and

ensuring there is no barriers to access

10

CCT and Social Services in Latin American Countries

Complementary Programmes:

Cons and pros:

Tailor made programmes generate parallel structure independent of the

sectoral policy and may turn the cash transfer programmes

administratively too heavy, but if the content of existing sectoral policy

is not adapt to the socioeconomic profile of cash transfers beneficiary, it

may be the only option…

… although some incentives can be given to sectoral areas to adapt the

programmes.

11

CCT and Social Services in Latin American Countries

Child-related Complementary Programmes:

Nutrition: food supplement for young children (micronutrients) and

pregnant or breastfeeding women;

- Oportunidades (tailor-made); Mi Familia Progresa – Guatemala –

and Juntos – Peru: existing programmes that use the health

conditionality as a way to include CCT beneficiary among their

beneficiaries.

Early childhood development: family visits, training for parents; (e.g

Familias en Acción – Colombia; Bolsa Familia – Criança Feliz - Brazil)

Education: school supplies (e.g. Bolsa Familia –one day shift schools)

12

Integrated Systems for Information Management and Single Registries

Single Registry: potential beneficiary of social programmes

(targeted) – socioeconomic profile. Selection of beneficiary

– issuing or using unique identifiers.

Management Information Systems for each programmes

use the unique identifiers.

Integrated System: allow information flow across

programmes and the single registry – identify potential

synergies and entry points for complementary programmes

and/or referral mechanisms.

13

Integrated Systems for Information Management and Single Registries:

The integrated systems can identify areas of interventions

beyond the targeted population and/or individual support to

the target population.

Examples:

(i) identifying areas with supply problems where

interventions benefit the whole community – poor school

performance;

(ii) Identifying children with nutrition problems – tailor made

support

14

Thank you

15