DOCSLIB.ORG

Here Remains Fragmented Coverage (Representing 47,195 Households)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Here Remains Fragmented Coverage (Representing 47,195 Households) @ United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2017 The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of UNICEF in Kazakhstan. Any information from this publication may be freely reproduced, but proper acknowledgment of the source must be provided. The publication is not for sale. 10A, Beibitshilik str., Block 1 Astana 010000 tel.: +7 7172 32 29 69 www.unicef.kz Barriers to access social assistance and special social services in Kazakhstan Lucy Scott, Georgina Sturge and Babken Babajanian November 2017 Table of contents Acknowledgements...............................................................................................................................................8 Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................................9 Executive summary .............................................................................................................................................10 1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................16 1.1. Background to the research.........................................................................................................................16 1.2. Research objective and questions..............................................................................................................19 1.3. Barriers to social assistance and special social services in Kazakhstan: Insights from literature................................................................................................................................20 1.4. Aim and structure of the report...................................................................................................................23 2. Methodology.....................................................................................................................................................25 2.1.Overview............................................................................................................................................................25 2.2.Quantitative method.....................................................................................................................................25 2.3.Qualitative method.......................................................................................................................................30 Findings Part 1: Barriers to access social assistance....................................................................34 1. Limited awareness of social assistance..........................................................................................................34 1.1 Understanding of eligibility..........................................................................................................................34 1.2 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................37 2. Information gaps in the application process.................................................................................................39 2.1 General lack of information about the assistance...................................................................................40 2.2 Lack of information about the (income) eligibility criteria...................................................................42 2.3 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................43 3. Documentation required for applying.............................................................................................................44 3.1 Confusion and lack of guidance about what documents to provide ..................................................45 3.2 Difficulties in obtaining unemployment certification............................................................................47 3.3 Requirements to submit documents on marital status and alimony payments..............................51 3.4 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................53 4. Restrictive eligibility rules and means testing..............................................................................................55 4.1 Other categorical transfers are included as household income for the purposes of assessing eligibility:..........................................................................................................55 4.2 Part-time, irregular earnings are included in the income assessment...............................................57 4.3 Livestock and cars are barriers to receiving poverty targeted assistance.........................................58 4.4 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................59 Findings Part 2: Barriers to access special social services.......................................................61 1. Information gaps...................................................................................................................................................66 1.1 Limited information about the application process................................................................................ 67 1.2 Limited information and understanding about the role of social workers......................................67 1.3 Recommendations..........................................................................................................................................68 2. Difficulties with the application process.......................................................................................................69 2.1 Overall complexity and time burden of application procedures........................................................70 2.2 Difficulties with the medical diagnosis procedure.................................................................................71 2.3 Difficulties in attending certification committees..................................................................................72 2.4 Recommendations..........................................................................................................................................74 3. Patchiness of service availability.....................................................................................................................75 3.1 Limited options and lack of explanation for referral.............................................................................75 3.2 Lack of specialists...........................................................................................................................................76 3.3 Delays in receiving certain services and equipment..............................................................................78 3.4 Specific barriers to access sanatoriums for children..............................................................................79 3.5 Recommendations.........................................................................................................................................80 4. Distance and lack of transport..........................................................................................................................81 4.1 Children in rural settlements are isolated from correction and rehabilitation services..............82 4.2 Social workers are assigned to children over a wide geographical area and are not provided with transport..........................................................................................................82 4.3 Transport is not provided to access special social services:................................................................83 4.4 Recommendations..........................................................................................................................................84 5. Stigma.....................................................................................................................................................................87 5.1 The family is ashamed to register their child as disabled or to receive allowances:....................87 5.2 Embarrassment by children to receive special social services...........................................................88 5.3 Hostility of society when people access special social services.........................................................88 5.4 Recommendations.........................................................................................................................................89 Findings Part 3: Expectations and reported requirements for social services and assistance.............90 6. Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................................92 6.1 Conclusions......................................................................................................................................................92 6.2 Policy recommendations...............................................................................................................................94 References................................................................................................................................................................96
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Investor's Atlas 2006
    INVESTOR’S ATLAS 2006 Investor’s ATLAS Contents Akmola Region ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Aktobe Region .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Almaty Region ............................................................................................................................................................ 12 Atyrau Region .............................................................................................................................................................. 17 Eastern Kazakhstan Region............................................................................................................................................. 20 Karaganda Region ........................................................................................................................................................ 24 Kostanai Region ........................................................................................................................................................... 28 Kyzylorda Region .......................................................................................................................................................... 31 Mangistau Region ........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Congress of Religious Leaders Discusses Role of Religion in Building Peace Youth Are Key to Enhancing National Competitiveness
    +8° / -2°C WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2018 No 20 (158) www.astanatimes.com Kazakh President urges dialogue at ASEM Kazakhstan retains Summit to resolve global conflicts position in WEF ranking the new methodology, the ranking By Saltanat Boteu was reviewed to 59th last year and remained the same this year,” said ASTANA – Kazakhstan ranked Khudaibergenov. 59th, maintaining last year’s po- The rating is composed of 98 indi- sition, on the recently-published cators. Kazakhstan improved in 50, World Economic Forum (WEF) weakened in 34 and remained the 2018 Global Competitiveness In- same in 14. The country’s advantag- dex (GCI). The Centre for Strate- es are the labour market (30th place) gic Initiatives (CSI) held a press and dynamic business (37th), while conference Oct. 17 to elabo- it is weaker in its financial system rate on the report, with director (100th), healthcare system (97th) Bakhytzhan Sarkeyev and senior and innovation potential (87th). partner Olzhas Khudaibergenov A significant improvement is answering questions. noted in institutions, which rose by Kazakhstan has participated in 12 positions to 61st place, and the the rating since 2006. From 2007- goods market, which rose by ten 2011, its rating remained between positions to 57th place. The largest 60-70 and improved to 42nd from decline is noted in education and 2012-2015. skills, falling five positions to 57th “Kazakhstan took 57nd place place, and the healthcare system, last year according to the former which fell three positions to 97th methodology. The ranking im- place. proved from 53rd to 57th place. By Continued on Page A4 Astana Hub seeks to become regional innovation centre One of the hub’s main achieve- By Aidana Yergaliyeva ments together with the state is the While in Brussels, President Nursultan Nazarbayev met with (clockwise from top left) King of the Belgians Philippe, President Emmanuel Macron of France, law on venture financing, which President Moon Jae-in of South Korea, and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, among other leaders.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigations on Tick-Borne Bacterial Agents in Kazakhstan
    Out of the Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maxmilians-University Investigations on tick-borne bacterial agents in Kazakhstan Doctoral Thesis for the awarding of a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) at the Medical Faculty of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich submitted by Nurkeldi Turebekov born in Aktobe city, Republic of Kazakhstan submitted on April 29, 2019 Supervisors LMU: Title, first name, last name Habilitated Supervisor Prof. Michael Hoelscher Direct Supervisor PD Dr. Sandra Essbauer 3rd LMU Supervisor Dr. Guenter Froeschl Supervisor External: Local Supervisor PD Dr. Gerhard Dobler Reviewing Experts: 1st Reviewer Prof. Michael Hoelscher 2nd Reviewer PD Dr. Sandra Essbauer Dean: Prof. Dr. med. dent. Reinhard Hickel Date of Oral Defense: November 12, 2019 ii Key words Tick, Rickettsia slovaca, Rickettsia raoultii, real time polymerase chain reaction, serum, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, Almaty region, Kyzylorda region, Kazakhstan. iii Abstract Background During the past 23 years the incidence of tickborne rickettsioses increased in Kazakhstan but studies on epidemiological data, vector species, prevalence and distribution are still insufficient to date. Unfortunately most cases of rickettsioses are remained unconfirmed due to the lack of modern diagnostic tests. The purpose of the research was molecular investigation of ticks for spotted-fever group rickettsiae in two pilot regions of Kazakhstan and to detect its role as a cause of the fever of unknown origin (FUO). Methods Six different tick species were collected and sorted from two selected regions in Kazakhstan. DNA was isolated and all tick samples were investigated for the presence of Rickettsia by real-time PCR. Multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) was conducted for positive samples.
    [Show full text]
  • Due Diligence on Social Safeguards
    Irrigation Rehabilitation Project (RRP KAZ 50387) Supplementary Document 17: DUE DILIGENCE REPORT ON SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS August 2019 Prepared by the Executing Agency, the Republican State Enterprise “Kazvodkhoz” of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Asian Development Bank. This due diligence report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADB Asian Development Bank Akimat Local Executive Power in the regions and districts DDR Due Diligence Report DP Displaced Person EA Executing Agency GoK Government of Kazakhstan GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism IA Implementing Agency IP Indigenous People IR Involuntary Resettlement KVK “Kazvodkhoz “Republican State Enterprise responsible for rehabilitation, operations and maintenance of irrigations and water facilities LARP Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan MOA Ministry of Agriculture MOF Ministry of Finance PIU Project Implementation Unit PMO Project Management Office PMC Project Management Consultant ha hectare CSC Construction Supervision Consultant SPS Safeguard Policy Statement (2009) of ADB km kilometer SNiP Construction Codes and Regulations
    [Show full text]
  • Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act - Annual Report
    Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act - Annual Report Reporting Entity Name Uranium One Inc. Reporting Year From 1/1/2020 To: 12/30/2020 Date submitted 5/21/2021 Reporting Entity ESTMA Identification Number E377743 Original Submission Amended Report Cheetah Resources s.a.r.l., Uranium One Amsterdam B.V., Uranium One Holland B.V., UrAsia Energy Holdings Ltd. s.a.r.l., Other Subsidiaries Included Uranium One Netherlands B.V., UrAsia London Limited, Deanco Limited, Uranium One Americas, Inc., Uranium One U.S.A. Inc., Uranium One Friesland Cooperatief U.A., Uranium One Rotterdam B.V., Uranium One Utrecht B.V, Joint Venture (optional field) Southern Mining Chemical Company LLP, Joint Venture JSC Akbastau, Joint Venture Karatau LLP, Joint Venture JSC Zarechnoye, Joint Venture Khorasan-U LLP, Joint Venure Kyzylkum LLP. For Consolidated Reports - Subsidiary UrAsia Energy Ltd. (E137688); Uranium One Investments Inc. (E654178) Reporting Entities Included in Report: Not Substituted Attestation by Reporting Entity In accordance with the requirements of the ESTMA, and in particular section 9 thereof, I attest I have reviewed the information contained in the ESTMA report for the entity(ies) listed above. Based on my knowledge, and having exercised reasonable diligence, the information in the ESTMA report is true, accurate and complete in all material respects for the purposes of the Act, for the reporting year listed above. Full Name of Director or Officer of Reporting Entity Jane Luck Date 5/21/2021 Position Title Vice-President, Legal and Director Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act - Annual Report Reporting Year From: 1/1/2020 To: 12/30/2020 Reporting Entity Name Uranium One Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • World Bank Document
    Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public Disclosure Authorized Report No: 33029-KZ PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT ON A PROPOSED LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF US$30.0 MILLION Public Disclosure Authorized AND A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF US$5.0 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN FOR A Public Disclosure Authorized FOREST PROTECTION AND REFORESTATION PROJECT October 24,2005 Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Unit Central Asia Country Unit Europe and Central Asia Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipient only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. Public Disclosure Authorized CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective September 23, 2005) Currency Unit = Tenge (KZT) KZT 134 = US$1 FISCAL YEAR January 1 - December 3 1 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ARPF Access Restriction Process Framework MTR Mid term Review ADB Asia Development Bank NCB National Competitive Bidding BP Bank Procedure NAP National Action Plan CAS Country Assistance Strategy NEAP National Environmental Action Plan CBD Convention on Biological Diversity NGO Non governmental Organization CIS Commonwealth of Independent States NRM Natural Resource Management (former Soviet Union) OMS Operational Manual Statement CPS Country Partnership Strategy OP Operational Policy COP Conference of Parties Orman Kazakh for "forest"; a state-administered CQ Selection Based on Consultant's forest area Qualifications Ormandar Plural
    [Show full text]
  • World Bank Document
    Document of The World Bank Public Disclosure Authorized Report No: ICR0000874 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IBRD-46090 TF-56801) ON A Public Disclosure Authorized LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 64.50 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN FOR A SYR DARYA CONTROL AND NORTHERN ARAL SEA PHASE-1 PROJECT Public Disclosure Authorized June 21, 2011 Sustainable Development Department Central Asia Country Unit Europe Central Asia Region Public Disclosure Authorized CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective June 21, 2011) Currency Unit = Kazakhstan Tenge (KZT) KZT 1.00 = US$0.0070 US$1.00 = KZT 145.57 FISCAL YEAR ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ASBP Aral Sea Basin Program M&E Monitoring and Evaluation BCG Basin Consultative Group MOA Ministry of Agriculture BVO Basin Water Authority MNREP Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection CAS Country Assistance Strategy MTR Mid Term Review CPAR Country Procurement Assessment Report NAS Northern Aral Sea CWR Committee for Water Resources of MOA NGO Non Governmental Organization EA Environmental Assessment O&M Operations and Maintenance EC-IFAS Executive Committee of the Interstate PAD Project Appraisal Report Fund on the Aral Sea EMP Environmental Management Plan PDO Project Development Objective FM Financial Management PHRD Japan Policy and Human Resources Development GIS Geographic Information Systems PIU Project Implementation Unit GOK Government of Kazakhstan PMU Project Management Unit ICC Inter-ministerial Coordinating Committee PPF Project Preparation Facility ICR Implementation
    [Show full text]
  • Environment and Development Nexus in Kazakhstan
    ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT NEXUS IN KAZAKHSTAN Environment and Development Nexus in Kazakhstan A series of UNDP publication in Kazakhstan, #UNDPKAZ 06 Almaty, 2004 1 ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT NEXUS IN KAZAKHSTAN Report materials could be reproduced in other publications, without prior permission of UNDP, provided proper reference is made to this publication. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of UNDP. Printed in “LEM Printhouse” 78a Baitursynov Street Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan Phone/Fax: 7(3272) 922-651 2 ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT NEXUS IN KAZAKHSTAN Foreword by the Minister of Environmental Protection of the Republic of Kazakhstan Dear Ladies and Gentlemen! In his speech at the World Summit for Sustainable Development, the President of Kazakhstan reminded the world community of the global scale of the processes that are underway, and called for prevention of irreversible harm to the environment in order to preserve the necessary life resources for our descendants. Environmental safety and sustainable development issues are of vital importance for Kazakhstan. Water resource deficit and significant land degradation, the Aral Sea disaster, the aftermath of the nuclear tests, accumulation of industrial waste, oil spills – all these problems are no longer fall under the category of environmental ones. Many of these problems are regional and even global. Coordinated interaction between the mankind and the environment and ensuring a safe environment are one of the priorities of the long-term Kazakhstan-2030 Strategy. It has clear-cut provisions: “...increase efforts in making our citizens healthy during their life time, and enjoying a healthy environment”.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Evaluation Report JP Kyzylorda.Pdf
    Final evaluation of the Joint Programme “Improving the welfare and quality of the life in the COMMITTENTE Kyzylorda region through innovative approaches to delivering economic, social and environmental services to the local population, including those most vulnerable” Final report Astana November 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements 5 Disclaimer 5 Summary 5 1. Introduction 7 1.1 Context 8 1.2 The Joint Programme 9 1.2.1 Nature and objectives of the Joint Programme 10 1.2.2 An overview of the role of the UN Agencies in the interventions of the Joint Programme. 11 1.2.3 General considerations on the JP approach 13 2. The evaluation of the Joint Programme: approach and methodology 14 2.1 Scope and Objective of the evaluation. 14 2.2 Use of the evaluation 15 2.3 Evaluation methodology 16 2.3.1 Methodological approach 16 2.3.2 Reference to UNEG General Norms for evaluation 18 2.3.3 Evaluation criteria 19 2.3.4 Data sources and collection methods. 23 2.3.5 Identification of the activities (cases) to be analyzed in detail 24 3. The evaluation process 25 3.1 Activities carried out 25 3.2 Limitations of the evaluation 26 4. Findings 27 4.1 Relevance of the Joint Programme 27 4.1.1 Relevance analysis 27 4.1.2 Coherence of the UN JPD with “Kazakhstan 2050” Strategy 30 4.1.3 Coherence of the UN JPD with Kyzylorda Territory Development Program 31 4.1.4 Coherence of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 32 4.1.5 Different approaches of UN Agencies to the JP 33 4.2 Effectiveness 35 4.3 Efficiency 38 4.4 Sustainability of the Joint Project results 40 4.5 Assessment dashboard for selected projects 42 4.6 Outcomes and Impacts 47 4.7 Management, organization and monitoring 49 5.
    [Show full text]
  • 50387-001: Irrigation Rehabilitation Project
    Initial Environmental Examination August 2019 KAZ: Irrigation Rehabilitation Project Kyzylorda Province Subprojects Project No. 50387-001 Prepared by the Republican State Enterprise “KazvodKhoz”, Republic of Kazakhstan, for the Asian Development Bank. This initial environmental examination is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB’s Board of Directors, Management or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. Your attention is directed to the “terms of use” section of this website. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation or, or reference to a particular territory or geographic are in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. TA-9317 KAZ: Irrigation Rehabilitation Sector Project Initial Environmental Examination of Subprojects in Kyzylorda Province Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................. viii 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... viii 2. Description of the Project ................................................................................. viii 3. Key findings ...................................................................................................... ix 4. Public Consultation Process ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Deposits of the Hydrocarbon Raw Materials of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Where It Is Possible to Introduce a Microbiological Method for Stimulating the Formation
    E3S Web of Conferences 280, 01002 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202128001002 ICSF 2021 Deposits of the hydrocarbon raw materials of the Republic of Kazakhstan, where it is possible to introduce a microbiological method for stimulating the formation Olga Kuderinova1,*, Makhambet Shmanov1, and Mykhailo Filatiev2 1Karaganda Technical University, Development of Mineral Deposits Department, 56 N. Nazarbayev Str., 100027, Karaganda, Republic of Kazakhstan 2Volodymyr Dahl East Ukrainian National University, 59a Central Ave., Severodonetsk, 93406, Ukraine Abstract. The article is devoted to the analysis and systematization of data on hydrocarbon deposits in the Republic of Kazakhstan, highlighting those aspects that will allow the use of this method. The microbiological method of exposure refers to the chemical methods of the tertiary stage of development of oil reservoirs. It has already proven its effectiveness in highly depleted, waterflooded formations with irregular, diffuse oil saturation. Its main advantages are its relative cheapness, it does not require additional equipment during injecting of the microorganisms into the reservoir, and for their nutrition, as a rule, food industry waste is used, and its implementation cannot cause harmful effects on the environment. Also, a fairly extensive database was compiled, according to which various classifications of the republic's deposits were created. 1 Introduction removed, plus gases that can be extremely hazardous to health will be released. And chemical solutions can The purpose of the study was to identify the parameters permanently poison underground waters, which will needed for the introduction of the method of entail the death of all flora on the surface. microbiological influence on oil reservoirs, justification of the need for its use, as well as collection, analysis and systematization of data on all known this type deposits of 2 About the method of the the republic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Decision of the Supreme Judicial Council of the Republic Of
    The Decision of the Supreme Judicial Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 26, 2014 on the basis of the contest choice for the vacant posts of judges of local courts, announced May 6, 2014 is given a recommendation to appoint: for the post of judges of the regional and equivalent courts (19): Esymova Alma Esymovna as a judge of the court of Astana city; Tursunov Oralkhan Tursunovich as a judge of the court of Astana city; Seytov Nurdilla Zeynedullaevich as a judge of Almaty city court; Musabekuly Zhandos as a judge of Almaty city court; Trumova Gulbadan Chokanovna as a judge of Almaty city court; Abdrakhmanova Bibigul Serikkeldyevna as a judge of Almaty city court; Zhanuzakov Samat Nurmuhanuly as a judge of Akmola regional court; Musabekova Marina Tokanovna as a judge of Almaty regional court; Abdullin Farhad Fazilzhanovich as a judge of Almaty regional court; Zhekenova Nurgul Zhekenovna as a judge of Almaty regional court; Azretkulov Dinmuhammed Ankabekovich as a judge of Zhambyl regional court; Idirov Erlan Ilishevich as a judge of the Western Kazakhstan regional court; Urazova Tursyn Sapashevna as a judge of the Western Kazakhstan regional court; Danenova Akmaral Alshynbaevna as a judge of Karaganda regional court; Muhamedin Elik Sergalievich as a judge of the court of Karaganda regional court; Shalaeva Natalia Alekseevna as a judge of North-Kazakhstan regional court; Mukhamedzhan Zhumabay Muhamedzhanuly as a judge of North-Kazakhstan regional court; Smagulov Aydar Askerbekovich as a judge of North-Kazakhstan regional court;
    [Show full text]