• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Assessment and recommendations to improve the resilience of the social protection system for a timely and flexible response to the needs of all vulnerable children and families facing shocks, disasters, and crises in Moldova 1 Assessment and recommendations to improve the resilience of the social protection system for a timely and flexible response to the needs of all vulnerable children and families facing shocks, disasters, and crises in Moldova 2 AKNOWLEDGEMENTS The assessment is the result of UNICEF’s collaboration with many individuals and institutions. The assessment was conducted by the team of researchers from Maastricht Graduate School of Governance: Franziska Gassmann, Victor Cebotari, Michaella Vanore and Hannah Röth under overall coordination and contribution from UNICEF Moldova. Necessary data and contributions to the review and validation of the assessment were provided by the Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family and the National Bureau of Statistics. Special thanks go to all teams of data collectors and survey respondents. Extracts from this publication may be freely reproduced with due acknowledgment using the following reference: UNICEF, 2016, Assessment and Recommendations to Improve the Resilience of the Social Protection System for a Timely and Flexible Response to the Needs of All Vulnerable Children and Families Facing Shocks, Disasters, and Crises in Moldova, Chisinau, UNICEF Moldova Office. All correspondence should be addressed to: UNICEF Moldova Office, 131, 31 August 1989 Str. Chisinau, Republic of Moldova Copyright © 2016 United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Cover photos: © UNICEF/MD2007/Giacomo Pirozzi Design: Silvia Lunevi 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS 4 SUMMARY 5 I. INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 Objective of the Assignment 10 1.2 Methodology 11 1.3 Guide to Chapters 12 II. VULNERABILITY IN MOLDOVA 13 2.1 Background 13 2.2 Current Analysis: Focus Group Data 16 2.2.1 Features of Vulnerability 16 2.2.2 Types of Shocks & Shock Severity 19 2.3 Current Analysis: HBS Data 24 III. RESILIENCE AND COPING MECHANISMS 27 3.1 Background 27 3.2 Current Analysis 28 IV. SOCIAL ASSISTANCE 32 4.1 Background: Emergency Funds Provided Through the Republican Fund 32 4.2 Background: Ajutorul Social 34 4.3 Current Analysis: MSAS Data 37 4.3.1 Application and Eligibility 37 4.3.2 Characteristics of Applicant Households 40 4.4 Current Analysis: HBS Data 42 4.5 Current Analysis: Screening Questionnaire & Focus Group Data 45 4.5.1 Patterns of Ajutorul Social Receipt 45 4.5.2 Awareness & Knowledge of Ajutorul Social 49 4.5.3 Challenges of Local-Level Implementation of Ajutorul Social 51 4.5.4 Administrative Barriers to Ajutorul Social Benefit 53 4.5.5 Problems of Ajutorul Social Receipt Based on Programme Design 54 V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATIONS 58 5.1 Key Findings: Vulnerability, Types of Shocks, and Shock Severity 58 5.2 Key Findings: Coping Mechanisms 59 5.3 Key Findings: Ajutorul Social as a Coping Mechanism 59 5.4 Recommendations to Improve Efficiency & Effectiveness of Ajutorul Social 60 5.4.1 Recommendations with Limited Fiscal & Legislative Impact 61 5.4.2 Recommendations with Potential Fiscal &/or Legislative Impact 62 5.4.3 Recommendations for Improvements Beyond the Scope of the Social Assistance System 64 5.4.4 Recommended Further Evaluations or Analysis 65 REFERENCES 67 ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE 70 ANNEX 2: SAMPLING METHODOLOGY FOR HOUSEHOLD SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE & FOCUS GROUPS 75 ANNEX 3: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS 77 3.1 Household Screening Questionnaire 77 3.2 Focus Group Discussion Guide 81 3.3 In-Depth Interview List 84 4 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Features of vulnerable individuals 17 Table 2.2: Shock characterisations 20 Table 2.3: Absolute poverty in 2014 using poverty line of mdl 1196 And extreme poverty line of mdl 680 25 Table 2.4: Poverty rates within vulnerable types of households 26 Table 2.5: Distribution of children across consumption quintiles, 2014 26 Table 3.1: Coping methods 29 Table 4.1: Ajutorul social mmgi household equivalence scale 34 Table 4.2: Number of applications for ajutorul social 37 Table 4.3: Fulfillment of gmmi & proxy-means test criteria 38 Table 4.4: Proportion of applications approved or rejected, By year & eligibility criteria 39 Table 4.5: Rates of approval across districts 2012 & 2013 40 Table 4.6: Characteristics of applicant households in 2013, By application outcome 40 Table 4.7: Labour market status of household members, By 2013 benefit receipt 41 Table 4.8: Coverage and distribution of ajutorul social & categorical Benefit beneficiaries across consumption quintiles 43 Table 4.9: Poverty rates among recipient and non-recipient households 43 Table 4.10: Average monthly consumption & benefit amount In beneficiary- and non-beneficiary households. Of ajutorul social, across consumption quintiles (in mdl) 44 Table 4.11: Percent of households that receive ajutorul social benefits, by vulnerable household types across consumption quintiles 44 Table 4.12: Share of ajutorul social within total per capita expenditure 45 Table 4.13: Shock prevalence & incidence of emergency assistance receipt 47 Table 4.14: Shock prevalence & incidence of emergency assistance receipt, by locality 47 Table 4.15: Problems reported by respondents in attaining ajutorul social 49 Table A.1: Selected sampling units for household screening questionnaire 76 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Severity ranking of shocks 21 Figure 2.2: Number & percentage of households experiencing a shock 22 Figure 2.3: Impact of shocks on household economic situation 23 Figure 4.1: Approval & rejection rates of ajutorul social applications, 2008-2014 38 Figure 4.2: Prevalence & type of ajutorul social, according to area of residence 46 Figure 4.3: Proportion of non-beneficiary at-need respondents, by district 48 5 LIST OF ACRONYMS FGDs Focus Group Discussions HBS Household Budget Survey MLSPF/MMPSF Ministry of Labour, Social Protection, and Family / Ministerul Muncii, Protecţiei Sociale şi Familiei al Republicii Moldova MMGI Minimum monthly guaranteed income MSAS/SIAAS Moldovan Social Assistance System / Sistemul Informaţional Automatizat „Asistenţa Socială” NSIH National Social Insurance House NBS National Bureau of Statistics OOP Out-of-pocket 6 SUMMARY The following report was commissioned by Budget Survey (HBS) were analysed to construct UNICEF Moldova and prepared by a research poverty profiles in Moldova and to assess how team from the University of Maastricht Graduate efficiently poor families were targeted and how School of Governance (MGSoG) as part of the important the ajutorul social benefits were. “Assessment and Recommendations to Improve Data from a household screening questionnaire the Resilience of the Social Protection System implemented among 393 households and for a Timely and Flexible Response to the Needs discussions from eight focus groups conducted of All Vulnerable Children and Families Facing in different regions were used to provide more Shocks, Disasters, and Crises in Moldova” in-depth insights into household experiences of project. This project was designed to assess how shock and resilience. The main findings of this the current social protection system in Moldova, report are summarised below. namely socia assistance programmes such as ajutorul social and the Republican Fund and Vulnerability & Shocks Local Funds for Social Aid of the Population (hereafter referred to as the republican fund), Household vulnerability to shocks involves two can be improved to increase the resilience of different elements: exposure to risks, and sources households facing idiosyncratic shocks. Four of resilience to withstand the consequences of aspects of the social assistance system and how shocks. Some households have both a higher it functions following an idiosyncratic shock were exposure to risk and more limited resilience in explored: the face of shocks; multigenerational households, households with multiple children, and 1) sources of household vulnerability, and the households where at least one member has a types and impacts of shocks on the well-being long-term illness or disability have been identified of a household; as particularly vulnerable. 2) coping mechanisms used by households to enhance resilience in the face of shocks; The shocks that households and individuals 3) the specific role of social assistance experience differ by scope (whether they are mechanisms in helping households prevent covariate or idiosyncratic), timescale (if the and mitigate shocks, and; shock occurs only once or can be considered an ongoing shock), and the severity (the magnitude 4) measures or components that could improve of negative economic consequences the shock the efficiency and effectiveness of the social carries with it). Common idiosyncratic shocks protection system in bolstering household include the onset of a serious illness and resilience faced with shocks. unexpected high expenditures for health care, the death of a household member, the loss of a These four areas were explored using a job by a household member, divorce or marital mixed methodological approach. Literature dissolution, and damage to a home, crops, or was reviewed related to past assessments of livestock due to a hazard such as a fire or flood. vulnerability in Moldova, assessments of social assistance schemes, reports on poverty and The shocks that were rated as the most severe shocks, and legislation. Data from the Moldovan by respondents to the household screening Social Assistance System (MSAS) were reviewed questionnaire and participants in the focus groups for insight into the administration of the ajutorul were those that created long-term economic social scheme, and data from the Household consequences. Respondents evaluated the 7 following specific shocks as being the most of one-off material aid or cash assistance. severe because of the way they perpetuated Ajutorul social can provide households with the vulnerability: the onset of a serious illness and resources they need to invest in risk prevention, high expenditures for health care, the loss of but there is limited evidence to substantiate house or damage to property from events like fire/ this potential.

Load more

  88

Copy Link