Developing a rights-based framework to assess poverty-targeted social assistance in the Arab region

 

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION

TECHNICAL COOPERATION

 

Terms of Reference

for

Developing a rights-based framework to assess poverty-targeted social assistance in the Arab region

Project:

Multiple Projects

Duty Station:

Remote

Duration:

9/10/2023– 31/12/2023

Reporting to:

Luca Pellerano, Senior Regional Social Protection Specialist for the Arab States, relevant ILO country teams for specific country application

 

 

Background and rationale

As countries in the Arab region progressively transition out of universal subsidies, significant efforts are underway across the region to strengthen social protection systems to tackle poverty and vulnerability. Several countries[*] have adopted or are in the process of adopting large-scale poverty-targeted national social assistance cash-transfer programmes.

Poverty-targeted social assistance cannot be the sole instrument in a social protection system tasked with progressively achieving universal social protection, and in particular a social protection floor, in line with the SDGs and international social security standards. However, poverty-targeted social assistance is an important component of a social protection system comprising different instruments to achieve better protection of the most vulnerable households. It can complement and supplement inclusive lifecycle based non-contributory schemes (i.e., child benefits, social pension and disability benefits), as well as contributory social insurance to achieve higher level of benefits.

International social security standards do recognize the role of poverty-targeted social assistance in achieving at least a basic level of social security, as a possible avenue to comply with Convention No. 102 and Recommendation No. 202 as well as other relevant international social security standards.

Given the fiscal resource constraints that exist in the Arab region, countries have resorted to rationing access to social assistance, including through poverty targeting. However, the design of such schemes rarely incorporates strong rights-based considerations. The limitations or absence of a rights-based approach not only relate to the targeting mechanism themselves (e.g., the adoption of proxy-means testing vs. means testing approaches, the concerns with exclusion errors) but also with fundamental aspects related to the legal foundation, transparency, flexibility/responsiveness and accountability of social assistance schemes.  While the design of social assistance schemes varies significantly across the Arab region ensuring poverty-targeted social assistance schemes have a strong rights-based design is a priority.

Purpose

Against this background, the ILO Regional office for the Arab States intends to develop a Brief+toolkit which delineates a series of relevant dimensions and criteria and a framework for assessing the extent to which poverty-targeted social assistance in the Arab region can be considered as being rights-based and provide guidance on how to render the schemes more rights-based in design and implementation.

This Brief+toolkit will utilise international human rights frameworks and social security standards, as part of a broader rights-based framework to social protection, to strengthen the following orientation across the region: that ‘yes’ poverty-targeted social assistance can be part of a universal lifecycle social protection approaches; however, not any kind of poverty-targeting approach will do. If poverty-targeted social assistance is to be used, it must conform to basic principles of rights-based social protection and be designed and implemented accordingly.

The Brief+toolkit is intended to influence policymakers and those working in social protection in the region. By highlighting the gaps and shortcomings of current poverty-targeted social assistance provision, it is hoped it Brief+toolkit can help stimulate policy shifts and reform social assistance benefits to have stronger rights-based characteristics. To support this, a checklist and associated guidelines will be provided whereby countries can perform a self-assessment to check how well their provisions fulfill rights-based considerations.  This is a strategic opportunity to signal good practice among countries in the region and prompt progressive alignment of schemes to become much more rights based. It is hoped that this Brief+toolkit can result in having the most advanced yet achievable rights-based version of social assistance possible.

 

Work assignment, Scope of Work, and Methodology

Preparation of a short policy brief (10-12 pages) buttressed by a self-assessment checklist and associated guidelines and possibly supplemented by additional material. The brief should include:

 

• A short framing of the objective, role and function of poverty-targeted social assistance within a multi-instrumented non-contributory social protection system.
• A description of the key dimensions and criteria that are relevant for the design of right-based poverty-targeted social assistance.
• An assessment/self-assessment checklist and associated guidelines (methodology and approach for the assessment to be suggested by the consultant).
• A section (with possibly an elaborated appendix_ detailing global good practice examples for the different dimensions and criteria, ideally including good practices from countries at different levels of development.
• An appendix describing in further detail the dimensions and criteria and relating those to relevant literature, human rights and social security standards, to be identified based on a literature review and analysis of published and grey literature. The existing literature and checklist composed by SOCPRO legal colleagues can be cited too.
• The Brief+toolkit should be accompanied by an infographic that depicts in clear and succinct style the key elements of this rights-based approach to promote intelligibility of what this approach entails.

 

As part of the consultancy the toolkit will also be tested in its concrete application in reference to one country in the Arab States region, to be selected jointly with the regional ILO office. The modality for the application (external assessment vs. self-assessment) will be determined during the inception period and it can be conducted in collaboration with relevant ILO national teams as relevant.

 

Deliverables and timeline:

 

The consultancy will begin on the 9th October 2023 and should be completed by 31st December for a total of 35 working days.

 

Deliverables

Deadlines (indicative)

1. Inception report with proposed rationale and refinement of the key dimensions to be included in the toolkit

31st October

1. Draft version of the brief+toolkit

30th November

1. Final version of the brief+toolkit, including annexes and suggested infographics

31st December

1. Country application of the toolkit, on a country to be jointly identified with ILO.

31st December

 

 

Supervision arrangements:

 

The consultant will work under the technical supervison of the Senior Social Protection Specialist in ILO Regional Office for Arab states, and in close technical coorination with an expert review team established with participation from members of the social protection team in Geneva and Arab states countries.

 

 

Payment Terms:

 

Payments will be made against submission of deliverables, subject to the approval of the project manager as per the ILO quality requirements, in accordance with the following breakdown:

 

Deliverables

Payment

1. An inception report with proposed rationale and refinement of the key dimensions to be included in the toolkit

15%

1. A draft version of the brief+toolkit

30%

1. A final version of the brief+toolkit, including annexes and suggested infographics

40%

1. A country application of the toolkit, on a country to be jointly identified with ILO

15%

 

 

 

 

Annex: Scope of self-assessment checklist for poverty-targeted social assistance that is rights-based[†]

 

A series of clusters with sub-points are outlined below to provide a mainly qualitative, and to a lesser extent, quantitative empirical basis to this checklist. These provide a nascent structure of this framework to be validated, questioned and further developed by the consultant, working with guidance from the regional specialist and HQ SOCPRO team. Based on the responses, a "shortlist” of core simple checklist (yes/no) answers which are very easy to determine could be extracted, leaving the rest of the assessment to assume a more qualitative nature, which would allow for countries or schemes to be grouped in some sort of grading systems (i.e perhaps a traffic light system). This would enable the Brief+toolkit to convey a sense of how well the scheme/country comply with a rights-based approach and whether there is room for significant improvement.  

Coverage and Selection

Coverage and exclusion

• Are eligibility lines/qualifying thresholds set at an appropriate level to ensure intended recipients can qualify?
• What proportion of the intended target population are excluded in practice (i.e what is the implementation gap: legal coverage minus the effective coverage rate)?
• Are there substantial exclusion errors? What proportion of the intended target population are excluded by the design (e.g., due to the targeting approach)?
• Is the proportion of the population covered sufficient to address needs of population in poverty or at risk of poverty (in line with the intended level of coverage of the scheme)?

Targeting mechanisms

• Is the scheme poverty-targeted/means-tested? Is means testing or PMT used?
• Is geographic targeting used or other mechanism used to target? and coverage overall?
• Are criteria in eligibility formula objective, transparent and independently verified?
• Are eligibility criteria adapted to regional differences in welfare (e.g., urban/rural)?
• Is administrative data used to determine eligibility?
• Are there mechanisms in place to correct for the exclusion of specific categories (e.g., small households)?

Dynamic nature and responsiveness

• Has the eligibility formula been determined on the basis of recent analysis of poverty dynamics/cost of living?
• Is recent reference (statistical) data source + recent analysis (and frequency with which analysis is updated) used to determine eligibility?
• What data is collected and how?
• How frequently is the certification/recertification performed?
• How frequent is the updating of key variables (e.g. newborns shifting HH size) that determine eligibility?
• Is frequency of certification/recertification sufficiently regular to ensure potentially eligible persons can access benefits when need arises?
• Is on-demand open registration available?

Programme exit

• Does the benefit provide labour market incentives?
• Is the benefit phased out upon return to work? And if yes, do you consider that  the benefit is not removed prematurely before a successful return to work has been achieved?
• Is there a re-entry guarantee for beneficiaries leaving the scheme should need arise again?

Conditionality, suspension reduction and withdrawal

• Are there behavioural conditions (soft/hard)?
• Are there sanctions for non-compliance such as suspended/reduced benefit payments?
• Is there the possibility of total benefit withdrawal?

Winder social assistance System

• Is the poverty-targeted scheme complemented by other non-contributory schemes to address lifecycle risks? (such as child benefits, social pension, and disability grants)

 

Equality, Non-Discrimination and Response to Special Needs

Non-discrimination

 

• Are non-national permanent and legal residents eligible to receive the benefit? Are refugees and asylum seekers eligible to receive the benefit?
• Are persons with disabilities eligible to receive benefit(s)?
• Are specific efforts made to make the information available to women and marginalized groups (e.g. minorities) who may have restrictions on their access to public spaces both presential and virtual?
• Are specific efforts made to raise awareness about the benefit and provide information to enable access to vuilnerable populations (e.g. by providing information in other languages or making information available in areas/camps where these population groups reside?)

Response to specific needs

• Are supplements paid if recipients have vulnerable members (i.e children, persons with disability, older persons)?
• Are eligibility criteria adjusted to allow for increased access for recipients who have vulnerable members (i.e children, persons with a disability, older persons)?
• Have efforts been taken to understand and correct for non-take-up by eligible persons?
• Are there mechanisms to ensure most vulnerable/excluded groups/populations are included?
• Are specific outreach efforts made to ensure awareness and registration amongst the most vulnerable and marginalized groups?

 

 

Availability, Accessibility and Adequacy

Adequacy

 

• Do benefit levels conform to levels outlined in Convention 102/Recommendation 202? (Do amounts at least meet national poverty lines?)
• Are the amounts paid similar to or higher than the regional average?
• Are benefits indexed to various cost-of-living markers?
• Is the benefit paid regularly (i.e., at least monthly)?
• Is the payment schedule predictable and understood by recipients?

Availability

 

• Can prospective rights-holders register for the benefit at any time? Is registration open?

• Is the lag between registration, eligibility determination and access acceptable/appropriate? Is there an option for retrospective payments for eligible persons?

Accessibility

• Is the registration and enrolment process straightforward and user-friendly?
• Are there high time, opportunity and transaction costs to access and enrol in the benefit scheme? And does this affect certain groups more than others (i.e., women)?
• Are multiple channels available for registration ( face-to-face, digital, hybrid)?
• Is there a high informational and procedural burden to demonstrate eligibility?
• Is the registration process staffed by humans as well as having automated processes in place?
• Is the design sensitive to the needs of HHs with children and PWD etc?

Outreach and rights-based awareness raising

 

• Is national/subnational communication sufficient to ensure potentially eligible/prospective entitlement holders are aware of their entitlements?
• Are qualification procedures and entitlements communicated appropriately (i.e., are different language needs/impaired hearing or sight taken into account)?

 

Access to Complaint and Appeal Procedures and Effective Remedies

Grievance and complaint system

 

• Can those people/HHs whose claims are rejected seek clarification around their case and why they were rejected?
• Are their grievance and complaint systems in place for would-be recipients to contest?
• Even if in place, do you consider these grievance mechanisms sufficiently responsive to prospective entitlement holders to resolve complaints in a timely manner and with due process followed?

 

Adequate Legal and Institutional Framework

Legal grounding

 

• Does the social assistance benefit have a legal basis?
• Does the legal basis specify the eligibility criteria and the benefit entitlements?
• In the absence of a law, are there regulatory instruments: subsidiary legislation, internal regulations that specify the eligibility criteria and the benefit entitlements?
• Do you consider this benefit sufficiently ‘demandable’ for this benefit to actually be claimed by eligible persons?

Meaningful and effective participation

• Does the scheme design include meaningful participation and consultation with rights holders and beneficiaries?
• Does scheme implementation include meaningful participation and consultations with social partners, such as workers, employer and civil society organisations?

 

Sustainable and Sound Financing

Budgeting

 

• Is caseload constrained by or determined by the available  budget  (e.g., rationing on the basis of available financing)?
• Is budget allocation process flexible enough to ensure response to additional needs should they arise?
• Is the scheme nationally funded with domestic resources?
• Is the scheme partially national funded and partially externally financed?
• Do you consider the scheme to be financed in such a way that is progressive, and embodies the principle of solidarity?

 

Transparency

Access to information

 

• Are eligibility criteria (inclusion/exclusion) clear and fully intelligible to prospective rights-holders?
• Are the selection formulae publicly available?

Privacy and new technology

 

• Are privacy protocols in place to protect rights-holders' information/details?
• Are adequate controls in place to ensure AI/automation conforms to rights-based principles?
• Are AI decisions operating in accordance with law and rights-based principles? And can cases be challenged?

Monitoring and Evaluation

• Is there adequate monitoring and evaluation to ensure the scheme performs as designed/intended? And are there course-correction options that can be pursued based on this M&E (i.e., adjustment to scheme design, benefit adequacy etc)?
• Are regular independent audits conducted to ensure that the governance of the scheme is correct/judiciously executed?

 

1. Qualifications and Selection Criteria

Individual consultants are invited to share the following documents by October 8th 2023 with the ILO Regional Social protection team at: fawaz@ilo.org and pellerano@ilo.org

• A cover letter outlining fit for the assignment
• CV
• An example of previous work on a similar assignment
• Financial proposal (Daily Rate)